Was USSR communist or socialist?

[Repox]

I am entirely aware of dekulakization, purges, etc.
My point was that suppression of the bourgeois classes alone is not communism and reducing it to that is a historical simplification.

I never implied or otherwise stated repression of the bourgeois classes is the total argument. If you were familiar with Marx you would know the bourgeois was a target. According to Marx, to bring about communism, you must eliminate social classes associated with capitalism. Socialism is the final stage of Marx's dialectical materialism leading to communism. The USSR never reached the final stage. Pure communism is not possible, it violates the tenants of human nature, or social differences found in all human societies. Marx may have been a brilliant economist, but he didn't understand human nature. Marx was wrong about humans natural tendencies toward living in a communist society. There is little or no evidence for social equality in any human society. During the USSR, however, there was much mention of Marx's communism. Even today, giants of the USSR like Lenin and Stalin are revered by most Russians. My proposition is communism is a goal for any nation wrought with internal contradictions due to underlying assumptions of social equality.

 

[Repox]

You said that Stalin killed many to bring about "communism".
That implies that he killed many to bring about communism or that he said he killed many to bring communism.
Which sort of implies that they brought about communism.

If that was just my misunderstanding, sorry about that.

O.K.

Back then, leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution turned to Marx for a new form of government, one superior to Czarist Russia. I am sympathetic to the needs of Russian people after such a brutal revolution. I have spent much time analyzing the reasons for its popularity and reasons why it doesn't work. I don't propose capitalism to be the solution. I don't think there is a solution, just different forms of government. I do think, however, the best form of government or social system is one in which human needs are not thwarted, but fulfilled to the maximum degree.

 

[Stevicus]

Because of Marx and Communism we have Communist leaders slaughtering Russian people to bring about Communism.

Stalin had nearly a million of his own citizens executed, beginning in the 1930s. Millions more fell victim to forced labor, deportation, famine, massacres, and detention and interrogation by Stalin’s henchmen.

Yes, I know all that. No one has ever claimed that they were saints or choir boys. Our own General William Tecumseh Sherman had to make some harsh decisions and justified them by saying "War is hell." But at least it's "natural." Your arguments seem to be vacillating between a devotion to "natural" law (claiming that communism violates that law) and Christian moral law.

Evidently you have not read what I have posted, or you have misinterpreted.

If I have misinterpreted what you're saying, it's only because you're trying to argue from two contradictory positions, one with natural law and the other with moral law.

My experience with Marxists is they distort in order to promote Communism.

Well, that's politics, and it can be said about any political activist or political faction. I've had similar experience with capitalists who try to distort in order to promote their ideals.

In fact, it's when I learned about how capitalists so utterly distorted public perceptions about communism and the Soviet Union that I started to become more sympathetic. U.S. political leaders like Nixon, McCarthy, Reagan, J. Edgar Hoover, and many others had a paranoid obsession over communism which led to so many malignant policies and atrocities around the world, from Vietnam to Chile to Nicaragua - and so many other places around the world.

You speak of millions killed by Stalin to bring about communism, but what does that say about the millions we killed to prevent communism?

I listed the example of how the USSR used US competitive athletic systems to compete with the US in the Olympics.

You mentioned it without any elaboration or evidence. I'm not sure what your point is, though. Competitive athletics would seem to be pretty standard for every country. A foot race is a foot race. A hockey game is a hockey game. Of course, there are going to be similarities in how they train and operate, since they're all training and competing in the same events with the same rules.

2+2 equaled 4 just as much in the Soviet Union as it did in the United States. You can't say that they copied us or are "using our system" by citing something like that.

Obviously, the USSR lost the cold war because their military was not adequate.

I would defer to military experts on this question, but my understanding is that their military was more than adequate. Obviously, they didn't lose the Cold War since they're still there and still regarded as a threat. Even you mentioned Putin and the potential for going back to the days of the Cold War. The world is actually quite fortunate that the Soviets backed down time and again, even when our own crazy leaders kept playing chicken with them as the world teetered on the brink. They could have thrown everything they had against us if they wanted to.

In some ways, it could be argued that both the US and the USSR lost the Cold War. (China won.) It was a great strain on our own economy and people. Fear of nuclear war, along with our own countrymen dying in far off places most Americans had never heard of before. Most of our current problems in the Middle East can be traced back to the Cold War and what we were doing back then.

Or, it could also be argued that the results of the Cold War have yet to be determined. It never really officially "ended," at least not from the point of view of US policy. Everything we're doing right now is an outgrowth of policies established during the Cold War.

As for the issue of freedom, under USSR leadership where do you find freedom?

I visited the Soviet Union in the 1980s. I didn't really see any obvious indications that they weren't relatively "free," at least as far as how most people might define the term. It was under Gorbachev, and his regime was considerably softer than previous Soviet leaders. The one thing that struck me was that, even 40 years after the end of WW2, they were still very much living in the shadow of that war. Some people talked about it like it happened yesterday; it was very much a part of their national consciousness. They love their country; they're proud of their culture and history. How can anyone fault them for that? They've been invaded so many times from all sides that their natural instinct to protect their homeland is quite strong - and should be easily understood by anyone who bothers to think about these things.

To be sure, they did soften their policies somewhat after Stalin died. By the time of Gorbachev, it was clear that they were trying to move towards greater freedom and civil liberties. They had a Constitution with many of the same rights delineated as in our Constitution. They were progressing and moving in the right direction, but they were also driven to protect their territory and homeland.

Think of how far our government has been willing to go to protect America, and the actions of the Soviet government might be more understandable. I'm not saying that makes it right, but at least it's "natural."

How many political parties other than the Communist party existed in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution?

Does it matter? As you mentioned George Washington previously, I will point out that Washington didn't like the idea of political parties at all. Many Americans refer to our own two major political parties as "Republicrats" (or some other hybrid name) to illustrate that, in practice, we have a one-party system as well.

In theory, a one-party system could function just as freely as a multi-party system, as long as each individual candidate can run on their own merits and platform. The general election would be the same as a primary election, which oftentimes offers even more choices than our current general elections. What is more democratic? Being able to choose from 10 candidates in the same party or only 2 candidates from different parties (which are different in name only)?

Isn't it true that under penalty of imprisonment, or the Gulag, there was little freedom in Russia. Under Stalin mass murders were common place as the above reference indicates.

Unfortunately, this was the case in both pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary Russia. Stalin learned from the Tsar, which was the only government he knew prior to the Revolution. Some might say that Stalin betrayed the Revolution by making himself Tsar, while others might say he was a "necessary evil" under the circumstances.

As for evidence, Capitalism has prevailed as the most successful method for economic prosperity.

That's not evidence, that's a claim.

As for the aftermath of WWII, if it weren't for the Marshall plan and other forms of government aid, there would not have been such remarkable world recovery from the devastations of war. Without aid from the US (airplanes, arms, etc.) the Axis would have defeated Russia.

Well, sure, FDR's government was quite capable and even called "communistic" by his critics. US anti-communists were always quite critical of FDR's policies and what they considered his "soft" attitude towards the Soviet Union. The US was also fortunate due to the happenstance of geography. All the fighting and destruction were taking place on other continents, while the Americas were relatively untouched by the war. Essentially, we were the only industrial power left standing. Europe, Russia, Japan, and China were in ruins.

The Soviet Bloc didn't get a dime from the Marshall Plan, and the US aid during the war was notable, but it would be a bold claim to say it was so indispensable that without it would have meant an Axis victory. In any case, it was just as much to our own advantage to aid Russia against the Nazis, since an Axis victory in Russia would have meant the eventual doom of the Western Allies as well. We weren't aiding them out of the goodness of our hearts.

Why didn't the USSR pay the US back for the use of military aid to win the war?

They didn't pay us back? I thought they had.

I know, they feel as if the US owes them.

Is that how they feel? I never got that impression when I was over there. They actually wanted to have a more peaceful relationship with the US because (at that time) they were more afraid of China than they were of us.

After all, communism is far superior to capitalism. As Marx stated, Capitalism must be destroyed in order to bring about utopianism or Communism.

I don't know what that has to do with military aid or whether the Soviets think we owe them. Although, I suppose it could be argued that if capitalism had been destroyed during Marx's time, then perhaps the world might have been spared the devastating world wars they would later have to face. World War I was as much a failure of capitalism as it was nationalism (and the two seem to go hand in hand in terms of their purported adherence to "natural law").

 

[Stevicus]

Part 2:

As for China, it is hypocritical. It criticizes capitalism while employing capitalism for economic prosperity. China would be a poor nation if it relied on communist based institutions.

They're no more hypocritical than we have been, as we have employed socialism for economic prosperity while touting ourselves as an example of an ideal capitalist society.

Actually, on that subject, we've been hypocritical from the very start. On the very first day of our existence, our Continental Congress adopted a Declaration which stated that "all men are created equal," but what that really meant in practice was that "all white men who own property are equal (and even then, not so much)." Even Constitutional provisions like freedom of religion, freedom of speech, voting rights, etc. weren't ever really seriously enforced until the 1960s, after nearly two centuries of blatantly obvious hypocrisy on the part of our nation and government.

It took us two centuries to finally get it halfway right. China's communist government has only been around for nearly 70 years, so I would say they're on schedule. If we're going to judge another country, at least let's judge them fairly by the same standards we would hold ourselves to. Isn't that reasonable?

Then, there is the example of the tremendous flood of immigrants into the US seeking jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities.

Or they might be seeking to get away from wars which we brought to their homelands. Either that, or they could be trying to get away from tyrannical regimes which we've propped up and supported for decades, all in the name of capitalism and freedom. Most of these immigrants are coming from capitalist countries like Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, so your argument here is not exactly a rousing endorsement of capitalism.

I have never heard of a communes or communist firms taking market share away from a capitalist nation like the US..

Except for China.

But then again, we should also take note of the fact that the US is actually losing in terms of global competition with other capitalist nations. Since it's not really working well for us these past decades, perhaps we should reconsider our mindless adherence to globalist anarcho-capitalism and take another path. It doesn't have to be "communist"; it's not like we have to choose one or the other.

Capitalism was good for America at one time, but perhaps it's run its course and it's time to progress beyond it. Just like with religion and monarchism, at one time, it might have served a purpose in terms of the development and growth of human civilization. But eventually, humans found that they outgrew those systems and were ready to progress beyond it.

Capitalism produces higher levels of efficiency and productivity than do communist firms. One reason for the success of capitalism is it promotes freedom in order for individuals to achieve in the marketplace. The evidence is clear, capitalism, compared to communism, promotes the free flow of social recognition processes leading to maximization of human potential. Based on productivity figures of capitalistic enterprises, there can be no doubt of the impediments of communism for a health social order.

You say the evidence is clear, but you really haven't shown any evidence. "Productivity figures"? Where? For what? It's not that I'm interested in arguing over which society produced the most widgets, but it's just that you're making grandiose statements which are largely theoretical and abstract, without delving much into the concrete or tangible.

 

[Repox]

Part 2:



They're no more hypocritical than we have been, as we have employed socialism for economic prosperity while touting ourselves as an example of an ideal capitalist society.

Actually, on that subject, we've been hypocritical from the very start. On the very first day of our existence, our Continental Congress adopted a Declaration which stated that "all men are created equal," but what that really meant in practice was that "all white men who own property are equal (and even then, not so much)." Even Constitutional provisions like freedom of religion, freedom of speech, voting rights, etc. weren't ever really seriously enforced until the 1960s, after nearly two centuries of blatantly obvious hypocrisy on the part of our nation and government.

It took us two centuries to finally get it halfway right. China's communist government has only been around for nearly 70 years, so I would say they're on schedule. If we're going to judge another country, at least let's judge them fairly by the same standards we would hold ourselves to. Isn't that reasonable?

Or they might be seeking to get away from wars which we brought to their homelands. Either that, or they could be trying to get away from tyrannical regimes which we've propped up and supported for decades, all in the name of capitalism and freedom. Most of these immigrants are coming from capitalist countries like Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, so your argument here is not exactly a rousing endorsement of capitalism.



Except for China.

But then again, we should also take note of the fact that the US is actually losing in terms of global competition with other capitalist nations. Since it's not really working well for us these past decades, perhaps we should reconsider our mindless adherence to globalist anarcho-capitalism and take another path. It doesn't have to be "communist"; it's not like we have to choose one or the other.

Capitalism was good for America at one time, but perhaps it's run its course and it's time to progress beyond it. Just like with religion and monarchism, at one time, it might have served a purpose in terms of the development and growth of human civilization. But eventually, humans found that they outgrew those systems and were ready to progress beyond it.



You say the evidence is clear, but you really haven't shown any evidence. "Productivity figures"? Where? For what? It's not that I'm interested in arguing over which society produced the most widgets, but it's just that you're making grandiose statements which are largely theoretical and abstract, without delving much into the concrete or tangible.

You have posted a lot for a response, I will, as usual, reply with one continual statement, taking on your argument point by point. First I am posting a reference to answer your reply to my assertion of superior productivity for Capitalism. If you research the issue, you will find many other references to the superiority of capitalism for high levels of efficiency and productivity over other economic means including communism.

The Answer Isn't Socialism; It's Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution | The Huffington Post

As for the argument for the "poor" USSR attempting to be defensive or competitive in the face of the onslaught of Capitalism, I refer to history. It is all about the "cold war." Who started it?
History is clear, it began with the USSR and China attempting to spread "Communism" throughout the free world. You keep saying it really didn't happen. Read newspaper and magazine articles for the period. Free or democratic nations were afraid of "Communist Expansion" throughout the world. It is a fact of history!

After WWII, The USSR and China armed North Korea to conquer South Korea for another "Communist Conquest." The US didn't start the war, it went to the defense of South Korea to stop the North Korean invasion. It is all there in historical records. General MacArthur performed brilliant military strategies to save South Korea from "communism." Yes, that is what they called it, "communism." You can't eliminate the idea of the USSR and China attempting to expand their brand of communism by redefining terms.

Then, France attempted to defend Indonesia from the Chinese Communist expansion of North Vietnam into South Vietnam. The French attempt was failing, so the US came to the rescue. Thus, we have the beginning of the Vietnam war. Communist backed North Vietnam began invading United Nations (capitalism) supported South Vietnam. Close friends of mine in the military gave me a blow by blow account of the war with "communist" North Vietnam. They called them Vietcong "communist" supported by "Red" (communist) China. So much for distortion of words to win an argument.

I don't buy the "poor USSR" argument. They and Red China were the aggressors.

As for the aid issue, the Marshall Plan was intended to benefit war torn Europe. The USSR did not return nations they occupied from the war with Germany. Rather than assisting those nations to recover from the horrible destruction of WWII, they made them part of their "communist empire." They ( Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Yugoslavia) became vassals of the USSR. It is evidence of "communist expansion." You can't rewrite history to support your ideas.

You stated, "Well, sure, FDR's government was quite capable and even called "communistic" by his critics. US anti-communists were always quite critical of FDR's policies and what they considered his "soft" attitude towards the Soviet Union. The US was also fortunate due to the happenstance of geography. All the fighting and destruction were taking place on other continents, while the Americas were relatively untouched by the war. Essentially, we were the only industrial power left standing. Europe, Russia, Japan, and China were in ruins."

Yes, and the US didn't have to come to the aid of war torn Europe, but true to principles of fair play and freedom it spend a huge amounts of money to aid afflicted nations. The USSR took advantage of weaknesses and expanded their communist empire by refusing to allow afflicted European nations to recover from their dire circumstances to become free nations.

For the benefit of humankind, it is fortunate that the USSR lost the cold war. As history demonstrates, communism is one of the most destructive forces ever. Contrary to Marxist claims, it destroys freedom in the name of "communism."

After many years of confrontations with the US and other capitalist or freedom loving nations, the USSR collapsed. It lost it's vessel states ( Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Yugoslavia) and subsequently the "cold war." Now, we have people rewriting history to make people think it really didn't happen.

You stated, "Capitalism was good for America at one time, but perhaps it's run its course and it's time to progress beyond it. Just like with religion and monarchism, at one time, it might have served a purpose in terms of the development and growth of human civilization. But eventually, humans found that they outgrew those systems and were ready to progress beyond it."

It is absurd to say capitalism has run its course. Capitalism is spreading all over the world because it is the most efficient system for high levels of efficiency and productivity. I assume you're proposing socialism. What remains? Oh, maybe, we can find the right economic system by looking at comic books or, perhaps, science fiction. Captain Kirk of the Enterprise may find it in the galaxies. It must be out there somewhere in vastness of space.

Contrary to Marxist claims, communism stifles freedom and destroys opportunities for free and prosperous societies.

If you want further evidence for the success of capitalism, studying the DOW and other market indicators for the success of free market companies. The Russian economy is in a tailspin. It may recover when it adopts free market principles characteristic of capitalist nations.

Under President Trump the Dow has soared to the highest levels in the history of the US stock market. Trump has promoted the expansion of US jobs, repatriation of US firms to US shores, and reduction of rules and regulations inhibiting the expansion and prosperity of capitalism . Prove of Trump's economic campaign is the US stock market, an indicator of the success of capitalism. You asked for proof. In addition to the above mentioned Huffington Post article, watch the DOW. Read stats about GDP growth, read about the expansion of US firms as the economy booms. Read about the rapid expansion and prosperity of US corporations throughout the world. It has nothing to do with socialism.

 

[Stevicus]

Look, it's obvious that we're going in circles here. I think we've reached an impasse in this discussion. I may reply point by point again at some later date, but not right now.

One thing I might point out is that there are other possible systems out there. I don't think we're limited to a choice of either "communism" or "capitalism." We're perfectly free to take elements of both systems whenever practical and beneficial for society. We don't need to lock ourselves in to one or the other.

I mean, we're just talking about economic systems here, not religions.

You have posted a lot for a response, I will, as usual, reply with one continual statement, taking on your argument point by point. First I am posting a reference to answer your reply to my assertion of superior productivity for Capitalism. If you research the issue, you will find many other references to the superiority of capitalism for high levels of efficiency and productivity over other economic means including communism.

The Answer Isn't Socialism; It's Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution | The Huffington Post

As for the argument for the "poor" USSR attempting to be defensive or competitive in the face of the onslaught of Capitalism, I refer to history. It is all about the "cold war." Who started it?
History is clear, it began with the USSR and China attempting to spread "Communism" throughout the free world. You keep saying it really didn't happen. Read newspaper and magazine articles for the period. Free or democratic nations were afraid of "Communist Expansion" throughout the world. It is a fact of history!

After WWII, The USSR and China armed North Korea to conquer South Korea for another "Communist Conquest." The US didn't start the war, it went to the defense of South Korea to stop the North Korean invasion. It is all there in historical records. General MacArthur performed brilliant military strategies to save South Korea from "communism." Yes, that is what they called it, "communism." You can't eliminate the idea of the USSR and China attempting to expand their brand of communism by redefining terms.

Then, France attempted to defend Indonesia from the Chinese Communist expansion of North Vietnam into South Vietnam. The French attempt was failing, so the US came to the rescue. Thus, we have the beginning of the Vietnam war. Communist backed North Vietnam began invading United Nations (capitalism) supported South Vietnam. Close friends of mine in the military gave me a blow by blow account of the war with "communist" North Vietnam. They called them Vietcong "communist" supported by "Red" (communist) China. So much for distortion of words to win an argument.

I don't buy the "poor USSR" argument. They and Red China were the aggressors.

As for the aid issue, the Marshall Plan was intended to benefit war torn Europe. The USSR did not return nations they occupied from the war with Germany. Rather than assisting those nations to recover from the horrible destruction of WWII, they made them part of their "communist empire." They ( Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Yugoslavia) became vassals of the USSR. It is evidence of "communist expansion." You can't rewrite history to support your ideas.

You stated, "Well, sure, FDR's government was quite capable and even called "communistic" by his critics. US anti-communists were always quite critical of FDR's policies and what they considered his "soft" attitude towards the Soviet Union. The US was also fortunate due to the happenstance of geography. All the fighting and destruction were taking place on other continents, while the Americas were relatively untouched by the war. Essentially, we were the only industrial power left standing. Europe, Russia, Japan, and China were in ruins."

Yes, and the US didn't have to come to the aid of war torn Europe, but true to principles of fair play and freedom it spend a huge amounts of money to aid afflicted nations. The USSR took advantage of weaknesses and expanded their communist empire by refusing to allow afflicted European nations to recover from their dire circumstances to become free nations.

For the benefit of humankind, it is fortunate that the USSR lost the cold war. As history demonstrates, communism is one of the most destructive forces ever. Contrary to Marxist claims, it destroys freedom in the name of "communism."

After many years of confrontations with the US and other capitalist or freedom loving nations, the USSR collapsed. It lost it's vessel states ( Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Yugoslavia) and subsequently the "cold war." Now, we have people rewriting history to make people think it really didn't happen.

You stated, "Capitalism was good for America at one time, but perhaps it's run its course and it's time to progress beyond it. Just like with religion and monarchism, at one time, it might have served a purpose in terms of the development and growth of human civilization. But eventually, humans found that they outgrew those systems and were ready to progress beyond it."

It is absurd to say capitalism has run its course. Capitalism is spreading all over the world because it is the most efficient system for high levels of efficiency and productivity. I assume you're proposing socialism. What remains? Oh, maybe, we can find the right economic system by looking at comic books or, perhaps, science fiction. Captain Kirk of the Enterprise may find it in the galaxies. It must be out there somewhere in vastness of space.

Contrary to Marxist claims, communism stifles freedom and destroys opportunities for free and prosperous societies.

If you want further evidence for the success of capitalism, studying the DOW and other market indicators for the success of free market companies. The Russian economy is in a tailspin. It may recover when it adopts free market principles characteristic of capitalist nations.

Under President Trump the Dow has soared to the highest levels in the history of the US stock market. Trump has promoted the expansion of US jobs, repatriation of US firms to US shores, and reduction of rules and regulations inhibiting the expansion and prosperity of capitalism . Prove of Trump's economic campaign is the US stock market, an indicator of the success of capitalism. You asked for proof. In addition to the above mentioned Huffington Post article, watch the DOW. Read stats about GDP growth, read about the expansion of US firms as the economy booms. Read about the rapid expansion and prosperity of US corporations throughout the world. It has nothing to do with socialism.

 

[Repox]

Look, it's obvious that we're going in circles here. I think we've reached an impasse in this discussion. I may reply point by point again at some later date, but not right now.

One thing I might point out is that there are other possible systems out there. I don't think we're limited to a choice of either "communism" or "capitalism." We're perfectly free to take elements of both systems whenever practical and beneficial for society. We don't need to lock ourselves in to one or the other.

I mean, we're just talking about economic systems here, not religions.

You can spend some time looking for other systems, but I doubt it exists. It is like reinventing the wheel. Capitalism works because it is compatible with human nature. Without incentives, how can we expect humans to be motivated? Without rewards for efficiency and high productivity, how can we expect companies to compete in the marketplace? Without competition, what are the incentives for high quality products and services?

 

[Stevicus]

You can spend some time looking for other systems, but I doubt it exists. It is like reinventing the wheel. Capitalism works because it is compatible with human nature. Without incentives, how can we expect humans to be motivated? Without rewards for efficiency and high productivity, how can we expect companies to compete in the marketplace? Without competition, what are the incentives for high quality products and services?

I'm not talking about reinventing the wheel. We already have a precedent for a very efficient, productive, and prosperous economic system by looking at what we were doing during WW2 and the decades following the war, which is when America's economy was at its peak. We were not purely capitalist or socialist - it was a mixed economy influenced by Keynesian economic philosophies. Everything was going great until Reagan and his cohorts tried to make everyone think it was lousy, at which point they ashcanned the reforms of the previous decades and took us more towards pure capitalism. And the results have been a disaster for America.

The key thing is to remain ideologically flexible.

As far as competition goes, I don't think you're taking into consideration all the enormous difficulty our government has had in trying to ensure "fair" competition. I suppose one could question whether the government should even interfere in that. Or even if government should intervene between management and labor. If a bunch of workers decide to go on strike, or even if they become violent and start killing their factory owners, then the government should stay out, if we're going to stay consistent to the principles of laissez-faire capitalism. After all, competition is competition, even if it's violent, and the government should not interfere in competition, according to the principles of capitalism.

But if capitalists demand that government protect them from rioters or angry workers, then they have to play by the government's rules and do what the government tells them. They can't have it both ways.

 

[Repox]

I'm not talking about reinventing the wheel. We already have a precedent for a very efficient, productive, and prosperous economic system by looking at what we were doing during WW2 and the decades following the war, which is when America's economy was at its peak. We were not purely capitalist or socialist - it was a mixed economy influenced by Keynesian economic philosophies. Everything was going great until Reagan and his cohorts tried to make everyone think it was lousy, at which point they ashcanned the reforms of the previous decades and took us more towards pure capitalism. And the results have been a disaster for America.

The key thing is to remain ideologically flexible.

As far as competition goes, I don't think you're taking into consideration all the enormous difficulty our government has had in trying to ensure "fair" competition. I suppose one could question whether the government should even interfere in that. Or even if government should intervene between management and labor. If a bunch of workers decide to go on strike, or even if they become violent and start killing their factory owners, then the government should stay out, if we're going to stay consistent to the principles of laissez-faire capitalism. After all, competition is competition, even if it's violent, and the government should not interfere in competition, according to the principles of capitalism.

But if capitalists demand that government protect them from rioters or angry workers, then they have to play by the government's rules and do what the government tells them. They can't have it both ways.

Capitalism represents good and bad of human society. When social injustice issues of capitalism arise there is an outcry for government to regulate. When unions overstep boundaries and drive companies out of existence with unreasonable regulations and excessively high wages, companies go overseas, or seek ways to untangle themselves. Then, we have unions making higher wages than school teachers, policemen, store clerks, or other less fortunate workers. When socialism comes to the rescue of workers, companies go out of business with high labor and benefit costs. How about entrepreneurial opportunities? What are the boundaries? Is it let the free market rule and accept the consequences? Well, they say, that is cruel, people get hurt in a free market society. I am in favor of laissez fair capitalism with minimum of government regulation or control.

My main point for our discussion is communism or socialism stifles human growth and development because those social systems dictate rules and regulations for all social institutions, which may or may not benefit individuals. One's environment should allow for individual freedom to engage and pursue social activities with the best possible role outcomes. Knowing how communism or socialism inhibits natural processes toward healthy human development, the answer must be found with social systems promoting and encouraging development of competence needs. The goal should be for each individual to capitalize (ha, ha) on what they do best results in fulfilment of competence needs. As an example, if I have an aptitude to play a musical instrument, I practice to become an accomplished musician and join a musical group. I should have the freedom to pursue my music without cumbersome rules or regulations, such as what kind of music the government deems acceptable. If I am a novelist, government should not dictate what themes or stories I can write. If I am a builder, except for safety issues, the government should not dictate what or where I can build. As for property, most land should not be owned and controlled by the government. Most land should be privately owned so as to limit government control over citizens.

If I want to start a new business, government should not have a lot of rules and regulations making my start up cost prohibitive. The government should not dictate what product or goods I can produce, unless there is a reasonable explanation such as harm caused to children, etc. Mostly, governments, such as those found in communist or socialist nations, are repressive because they intrude in the daily lives of individuals in all areas of activity (religion, politics, business, education, and even law enforcement). Local municipalities or governments should be accountable to local citizens, not to a central government or one political (communist or socialist) party.

You stated, "As far as competition goes, I don't think you're taking into consideration all the enormous difficulty our government has had in trying to ensure "fair" competition. I suppose one could question whether the government should even interfere in that. Or even if government should intervene between management and labor. If a bunch of workers decide to go on strike, or even if they become violent and start killing their factory owners, then the government should stay out, if we're going to stay consistent to the principles of laissez-faire capitalism. After all, competition is competition, even if it's violent, and the government should not interfere in competition, according to the principles of capitalism.

In the United States, common law rules over people's lives, legislatures pass laws as social and political circumstances determine, and free elections allow for the will of the people to prevail. Therefore, I am not advocating for rule breaking or anarchy. Law enforcement functions to maintain society according to democratic principles. The US is not a one party (communist) system. In a democratic nation, laissez-faire capitalism is not only possible it flourishes. It is silly to suggest a bunch of workers can commit acts of violence without consequences. US companies compete in the marketplace and succeed. They are not stupid, they know how to operate successfully without breaking laws.

A nation should allow for healthy individual development resulting in successful role outcomes. There should be as many political parties as there are political interests, not just one communist party, or one socialist "state" like the USSR.

 

[Stevicus]

Capitalism represents good and bad of human society. When social injustice issues of capitalism arise there is an outcry for government to regulate. When unions overstep boundaries and drive companies out of existence with unreasonable regulations and excessively high wages, companies go overseas, or find ways to untangle themselves. Then, we have unions making higher wages than school teachers, policemen, store clerks, or other less fortunate workers. Then, socialism comes to the rescue of workers and companies go out of business with high labor and benefit costs. What are the boundaries? Maybe, it is let the free market rule and accept the consequences. Well, they say, that is cruel, people get hurt in a free market society. I am in favor of laissez fair capitalism with minimum of government regulation or control.

My main point of our discussion is communism or socialism stifles human growth and development because those social systems dictate rules and regulations, which may or may not benefit individuals. Knowing how communism or socialism inhibits natural processes toward healthy human development and outcomes, the answer must be found with social systems promoting and encouraging development of competence needs. Each individual's ability to capitalize (ha, ha) on what they do best results in fulfilment of competence needs. As an example, if I have an aptitude to play a musical instrument, I practice to become an accomplished musician and join musical groups. Individuals should be free of repressive government officials One's environment should allow for individual freedom to engage and pursue social activities with the best competence fit. If I am an excellent musician, I should have the freedom to pursue my music without cumbersome rules or regulations, such as what kind of music the government deems acceptable.

If I want to start a new business, government should not have a lot of rules and regulations making start up cost prohibitive. The government should not dictate which product or goods or I can produce, unless there is a reasonable explanation such as harm caused to children, etc. Mostly, governments, such as those found in communist or socialist societies, are repressive because they intrude in the lives of individuals in almost all areas of activity (religion, politics, business, education, and even law enforcement).

A lot of the rules and regulations imposed by government didn't just pop up out of a vacuum or were put there for no reason.

Government regulation is sometimes meant to protect the capitalist system and ensure that there is fair competition in the marketplace. Even a free society has to have some degree of law and order, as well as a balance between political factions to relieve and/or minimize any levels of discontent. An unstable society is bad for business, so it's in the capitalists' interests to support and promote political harmony and stability.

If we're viewing economic competition like a sporting event, then the government has the role of "referee" in that sport. And every sport has rules and regulations in order to ensure that the competition is fair and on a level playing field. But as we've also discussed human nature, we both know that there is a darker, uglier side to human nature which doesn't believe in playing fair and will resort to drastic measures to acquire wealth and resources.

Another thing is that our political and economic system have grown so incredibly complex that some form of government regulation seems unavoidable. While you may give credit to capitalism for industrialism, as well as the drive towards innovation, invention, and discovery, each new thing brought into the marketplace also brought about problems that had to be dealt with on a governmental level. In Adam Smith's time, the economic system was a lot more primitive - more agrarian - which was no more complex than a farmer selling his wares at the market.

But as more industries developed and blossomed, the whole process became all the more complex and in need of some sort of monitoring and regulation. Banking, currency, antitrust - as well as taking on the obligation of dealing with the social problems accompanying the growth of cities which were becoming larger than ever before in known human history. Environmental protection also became important, even back during the days of Teddy Roosevelt. Plus, there had been some particularly violent strikes and other labor unrest in railroads, mining, steel workers, etc. If government didn't intervene, the situations could have gotten out of control. In some cases, they've had to rein in big labor, as they sometimes became just as bad as big business - and also just as rife with corruption and organized crime.

Mind you, I'm not advocating a Soviet-style system by any means. My only point here is that, at least when measured in relative terms, their society advanced far more rapidly than what had been taking place under the previous system of government. I'm not defending their methods, but I'm only saying that it would be inaccurate to say that their system was "non-functional" or "non-working." It did work, and those who achieved higher levels of competence received social recognition. The only real significant difference with the West is that they didn't have the same degree of luxury and wealth that Western capitalists have grown accustomed to.

But that may also be due to cultural and philosophical differences about the "bourgeois" lifestyle in that it's seen as too decadent, luxurious, hedonistic, and soft - which some might see as undermining human character and leading to self-destructive behaviors. It's not necessarily actively trying to oppose "human nature," but perhaps develop human nature to a better standard.

Perhaps communism might be explained as an attempt to try to accelerate human evolution in a positive direction. If it failed, it's because humans just aren't ready to move forward. We seem to enjoy reverting back to more primitive ways whenever we have the opportunity to advance. The internet is a perfect example of this. What wonderful technology, a tool for communicating, networking, and bringing people together from all around the world - not to mention the wonders it's done for free-market economics. And yet, the way most people use it, they seem enamored with getting caught up in the muck and the mire.

You speak of human nature, but sometimes I think that human nature is fundamentally screwed up. Our whole civilization has been antithetical to human nature to some degree, but it's been necessary, otherwise humans never would have progressed beyond the Stone Age. So, could it be argued that the more antithetical to human nature we try to be, the more humanity as a whole might progress?

What's so good about "human nature" anyway? Now that I think about it, we humans can be pretty horrible creatures, and sometimes our baser natures have to be restrained. Our ideals of freedom and liberty were to free the individual while restraining the abuses of power which stifled individual freedom. But it was also expected that the enlightened and free individual would be able to restrain himself and his own base "nature." When that doesn't happen, then the system slowly starts to break down.

 

[Repox]

A lot of the rules and regulations imposed by government didn't just pop up out of a vacuum or were put there for no reason.

Government regulation is sometimes meant to protect the capitalist system and ensure that there is fair competition in the marketplace. Even a free society has to have some degree of law and order, as well as a balance between political factions to relieve and/or minimize any levels of discontent. An unstable society is bad for business, so it's in the capitalists' interests to support and promote political harmony and stability.

If we're viewing economic competition like a sporting event, then the government has the role of "referee" in that sport. And every sport has rules and regulations in order to ensure that the competition is fair and on a level playing field. But as we've also discussed human nature, we both know that there is a darker, uglier side to human nature which doesn't believe in playing fair and will resort to drastic measures to acquire wealth and resources.

Another thing is that our political and economic system have grown so incredibly complex that some form of government regulation seems unavoidable. While you may give credit to capitalism for industrialism, as well as the drive towards innovation, invention, and discovery, each new thing brought into the marketplace also brought about problems that had to be dealt with on a governmental level. In Adam Smith's time, the economic system was a lot more primitive - more agrarian - which was no more complex than a farmer selling his wares at the market.

But as more industries developed and blossomed, the whole process became all the more complex and in need of some sort of monitoring and regulation. Banking, currency, antitrust - as well as taking on the obligation of dealing with the social problems accompanying the growth of cities which were becoming larger than ever before in known human history. Environmental protection also became important, even back during the days of Teddy Roosevelt. Plus, there had been some particularly violent strikes and other labor unrest in railroads, mining, steel workers, etc. If government didn't intervene, the situations could have gotten out of control. In some cases, they've had to rein in big labor, as they sometimes became just as bad as big business - and also just as rife with corruption and organized crime.

Mind you, I'm not advocating a Soviet-style system by any means. My only point here is that, at least when measured in relative terms, their society advanced far more rapidly than what had been taking place under the previous system of government. I'm not defending their methods, but I'm only saying that it would be inaccurate to say that their system was "non-functional" or "non-working." It did work, and those who achieved higher levels of competence received social recognition. The only real significant difference with the West is that they didn't have the same degree of luxury and wealth that Western capitalists have grown accustomed to.

But that may also be due to cultural and philosophical differences about the "bourgeois" lifestyle in that it's seen as too decadent, luxurious, hedonistic, and soft - which some might see as undermining human character and leading to self-destructive behaviors. It's not necessarily actively trying to oppose "human nature," but perhaps develop human nature to a better standard.

Perhaps communism might be explained as an attempt to try to accelerate human evolution in a positive direction. If it failed, it's because humans just aren't ready to move forward. We seem to enjoy reverting back to more primitive ways whenever we have the opportunity to advance. The internet is a perfect example of this. What wonderful technology, a tool for communicating, networking, and bringing people together from all around the world - not to mention the wonders it's done for free-market economics. And yet, the way most people use it, they seem enamored with getting caught up in the muck and the mire.

You speak of human nature, but sometimes I think that human nature is fundamentally screwed up. Our whole civilization has been antithetical to human nature to some degree, but it's been necessary, otherwise humans never would have progressed beyond the Stone Age. So, could it be argued that the more antithetical to human nature we try to be, the more humanity as a whole might progress?

What's so good about "human nature" anyway? Now that I think about it, we humans can be pretty horrible creatures, and sometimes our baser natures have to be restrained. Our ideals of freedom and liberty were to free the individual while restraining the abuses of power which stifled individual freedom. But it was also expected that the enlightened and free individual would be able to restrain himself and his own base "nature." When that doesn't happen, then the system slowly starts to break down.

You are suggesting capitalism is so bad or evil, therefore it requires government regulations. All governments, especially those associated with complex societies have rules and regulations. We find no flawless people or perfect social systems except in science fiction books.

You stated, "Perhaps communism might be explained as an attempt to try to accelerate human evolution in a positive direction. If it failed, it's because humans just aren't ready to move forward. We seem to enjoy reverting back to more primitive ways whenever we have the opportunity to advance. The internet is a perfect example of this. What wonderful technology, a tool for communicating, networking, and bringing people together from all around the world - not to mention the wonders it's done for free-market economics. And yet, the way most people use it, they seem enamored with getting caught up in the muck and the mire."

I propose communism is an attempt to curb freedom of expression and reduce competition in favor of state sponsored companies; it fulfills the needs of government agencies, not capitalist firms in a free or unfettered marketplace. Communism deters competition, stifles productive, innovation, and free expression. Communism is a kind of secular religion, it represses free expression with monotheistic rules and regulations. It dampens diversity, free expression and product innovation required for a competive market. Socialism is a precondition for a communist society, it prepares social institutions for a complete government take over of society.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

On some occasions, I've heard some people use the term "communist" to describe any overzealous cop or overbearing state authority, somewhat interchangeably with the term "fascist," since both are associated with totalitarian police states.

Which sucks, because hardly anyone realizes Marxism is just as "far Left" as Anarchy, another widely and often misunderstood and misrepresented ideology.

The communist assumption of equality defies human nature.

We have evolved to be social animals, which means caring for each other and building stronger communities. This is what the core essence of communism is. You don't work and buy for the profit of a few but rather work and produce for yourselves and each other. Of course there is no denying people are differently skilled and talented, but objectively we really would be so much better off if we weren't working for the profits of a few. We consume too much, we go fight too many wars, and we're becoming more concerned about what advertisers on TV tell us what we want instead of knowing what our neighbors need. If anything is unnatural, it is this "sit all day" or "work all day," it is our unsustainable ways of living, and our lives of extreme luxury and convenience. All brought to you by slave children, by those extremely overworked and extremely fatigued, and those supervised by arm guards who shoot first, end of discussion, there is no "ask questions later."

 

[Stevicus]

I propose communism is an attempt to curb freedom of expression and reduce competition in favor of state sponsored companies; it fulfills the needs of government agencies, not capitalist firms in a free or unfettered marketplace. Communism deters competition, stifles productive, innovation, and free expression. Communism is a kind of secular religion, it represses free expression with monotheistic rules and regulations. It dampens diversity, free expression and product innovation required for a competive market. Socialism is a precondition for a communist society, it prepares social institutions for a complete government take over of society.

Let's try another tack here: Assuming that what you say above is true, why do you think communists would do these things? Are you suggesting that they're intentionally screwing up their own societies just for the heck of it? If so, why? You make it sound like they do all these things purely out of spite? What do you think their motivation might be?

 

[Repox]

Let's try another tack here: Assuming that what you say above is true, why do you think communists would do these things? Are you suggesting that they're intentionally screwing up their own societies just for the heck of it? If so, why? You make it sound like they do all these things purely out of spite? What do you think their motivation might be?

According to my experience, Marxist exaggerate of even lie to promote Marxism. While finding internal contradictions in capitalism, they ignore weaknesses in socialist or communist societies, especially with reference to economics. Most Marxist I've known promote communism as if it was a religion. They don't see the harmful consequences of the "proletariat dictator," or brainwashing found in Marxian societies. They have faith in Marx's predictions for the fall of capitalism while failing to see how successful capitalism has become. How can you have innovation or healthy social institutions when a ruling elite dominate the society? On almost every economic measure socialist societies like the USSR have not matched the efficiency or productivity of capitalist societies like the United States. In short, where is the evidence for the superiority of socialism or communism?.

 

[Repox]

Which sucks, because hardly anyone realizes Marxism is just as "far Left" as Anarchy, another widely and often misunderstood and misrepresented ideology.

We have evolved to be social animals, which means caring for each other and building stronger communities. This is what the core essence of communism is. You don't work and buy for the profit of a few but rather work and produce for yourselves and each other. Of course there is no denying people are differently skilled and talented, but objectively we really would be so much better off if we weren't working for the profits of a few. We consume too much, we go fight too many wars, and we're becoming more concerned about what advertisers on TV tell us what we want instead of knowing what our neighbors need. If anything is unnatural, it is this "sit all day" or "work all day," it is our unsustainable ways of living, and our lives of extreme luxury and convenience. All brought to you by slave children, by those extremely overworked and extremely fatigued, and those supervised by arm guards who shoot first, end of discussion, there is no "ask questions later."

Your discussion of ideal communism fits small societies, or even primitive societies where goods and services are shared in common. Those social systems don't work in large urban environments where mass productivity requires efficient and skillful applications of human capital, or mass assemble lines to maintain high productivity rates for highly competitive markets. It is all part the industrial revolution. It requires cooperation and efficiencies beyond what small groups or communes offer.

 

[Repox]

Your discussion of ideal communism fits small societies, or even primitive societies where goods and services are shared in common. Those social systems don't work in large urban environments where mass productivity requires efficient and skillful applications of human capital, or mass assemble lines to maintain high productivity rates for highly competitive markets. It is all part the industrial revolution. It requires cooperation and efficiencies beyond what small groups or communes offer. As for your discussion of social injustice issues, it happened a lot during early industrial times when labor was sadly exploited. Since then, labor unions have brought about higher wages and better working conditions for workers. In most advanced industrial nations, mass assemble lines provide for higher wages and better working conditions. Regardless, to compete, labor and capital are in a continual race to become more efficient in order to out produce competitors. Competition has reached a feverish pace whereas computer technology is replacing human capital at an increasing rate. Now, communes may be more welcomed than ever, but the problem is how do they fulfill income and benefit needs. Live poor and be happy?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

mass assemble lines to maintain high productivity rates for highly competitive markets.

You do realize mass manufacturing is unsustainable, don't you? These "competitive markets," they are depleting the planet's resources faster than it can replenish them.

It is all part the industrial revolution.

That was hundreds of years ago. It's time to move on to new models and new revolutions.

 

[Stevicus]

According to my experience, Marxist exaggerate of even lie to promote Marxism. While finding internal contradictions in capitalism, they ignore weaknesses in socialist or communist societies, especially with reference to economics. Most Marxist I've known promote communism as if it was a religion.

These same criticisms can be made just as easily against capitalists. But I was asking about the motives of why communists do what they do. Why would someone in a capitalist society (which is so wonderful) decide all of a sudden to want to tear it all down and build a non-productive state to replace it? How could the masses, who were all wonderfully benefiting and prospering from such a system, actually get behind a communist revolution? If everyone in Cuba under Batista was doing so well and prospering nicely under capitalism, why on Earth would they follow someone like Fidel Castro?

Can you answer any of these questions?

They don't see the harmful consequences of the "proletariat dictator," or brainwashing found in Marxian societies. They have faith in Marx's predictions for the fall of capitalism while failing to see how successful capitalism has become.

They don't see how successful capitalism has become because most people who live under capitalism don't really see any such "success." It's only for the few at the top, while most of society suffers.

How can you have innovation or healthy social institutions when a ruling elite dominate the society?

We could ask the same question about the United States, where a ruling elite dominates the society.

On almost every economic measure socialist societies like the USSR have not matched the efficiency or productivity of capitalist societies like the United States. In short, where is the evidence for the superiority of socialism or communism?.

Well, again, we've been over all this. Comparing the USSR to the United States does not really give us a true measure or comparison between a typical "capitalist" system versus a typical "communist" system. Compare the USSR to such capitalist paradises like Guatemala or Chad, and you'd have quite a bit of evidence showing the superiority of communism over capitalism.

But if you want evidence, then all you have to do is compare the results of WW1 versus WW2. Capitalist Russia did horribly in WW1 against capitalist Germany, but communist Russia did remarkably better against capitalist Germany in WW2. To me, this is proof of the superiority of communism over capitalism.

Another example might be to compare capitalist China and its poor performance against Japan in WW2. Yet, communist China fought the US to a standstill in the Korean War, and we defeated Japan, the country that defeated China in WW2.

So, it's clear that communist Russia was better than capitalist Russia. Communist China was better than capitalist China. Communist Cuba was better than capitalist Cuba. Do you see a pattern here? America has not had communism, but if the same pattern holds, then a hypothetically communist America would be far superior to capitalist America as it stands today.

 

[Repox]

You do realize mass manufacturing is unsustainable, don't you? These "competitive markets," they are depleting the planet's resources faster than it can replenish them.

That was hundreds of years ago. It's time to move on to new models and new revolutions.

Sounds good. How do you implement it? Unfortunately, computer technology is taking over productivity at an increasing rate. The only "new model" I see is people downsizing to a lower standard of living because of advanced technology displacing them. The days of mass assembly line workers making more money than school teachers, police officers, and store clerks is coming to an end. Soon, as unions become a smaller segment of the workforce, people will have to settle for less. Maybe, it is time for communes. Workers can share their grieve in common, or in small communities where lower standards of living may lead to a multitude of living possibilities. Because of this new stage in the computer revolution, I don't see much optimism for either maintaining high standards of living or in increasing one's quality of live, unless, of course, we change the meaning of "quality of life."

 

[Repox]

These same criticisms can be made just as easily against capitalists. But I was asking about the motives of why communists do what they do. Why would someone in a capitalist society (which is so wonderful) decide all of a sudden to want to tear it all down and build a non-productive state to replace it? How could the masses, who were all wonderfully benefiting and prospering from such a system, actually get behind a communist revolution? If everyone in Cuba under Batista was doing so well and prospering nicely under capitalism, why on Earth would they follow someone like Fidel Castro?

Can you answer any of these questions?



They don't see how successful capitalism has become because most people who live under capitalism don't really see any such "success." It's only for the few at the top, while most of society suffers.



We could ask the same question about the United States, where a ruling elite dominates the society.



Well, again, we've been over all this. Comparing the USSR to the United States does not really give us a true measure or comparison between a typical "capitalist" system versus a typical "communist" system. Compare the USSR to such capitalist paradises like Guatemala or Chad, and you'd have quite a bit of evidence showing the superiority of communism over capitalism.

But if you want evidence, then all you have to do is compare the results of WW1 versus WW2. Capitalist Russia did horribly in WW1 against capitalist Germany, but communist Russia did remarkably better against capitalist Germany in WW2. To me, this is proof of the superiority of communism over capitalism.

Another example might be to compare capitalist China and its poor performance against Japan in WW2. Yet, communist China fought the US to a standstill in the Korean War, and we defeated Japan, the country that defeated China in WW2.

So, it's clear that communist Russia was better than capitalist Russia. Communist China was better than capitalist China. Communist Cuba was better than capitalist Cuba. Do you see a pattern here? America has not had communism, but if the same pattern holds, then a hypothetically communist America would be far superior to capitalist America as it stands today.

You ignore reality. Because of capitalism, standards of living and the quality of life has increased for middles classes in most capitalist nations. Just walk down the street of an average suburban community in most capitalist nations and you'll see higher living standards, higher home ownership, and higher quality of life than most communist or socialist nations since WWII. .

Communist Russian did remarkable worse than the US, or other capitalist nations, after WWII. Now Russia is in an economic tailspin after the demise of the USSR. After WWII, the USSR never achieved the same level of economic success as did the US or other capitalist nations.

After the USSR lost its empire, it began to decline, it no longer has vassal states to prop it up. The US has become a capitalist powerhouse without exploiting eastern block nations. Capitalist don't need to exploit other nations in order have high levels productivity. The US offers economic opportunities not defunct ideology.

I think Marxists suffer from delusions of grandeur. Ha. Ha. Oh, wait, I think it is false consciousness. Capitalists don't suffer from the same malady. They face facts.