The Dead Horse Rides again: Cap/Com Debate

[The Mad Monk]

...so what happened to the rest of that leftish, larger democracy?

Not continuing with what obviously worked seems pretty incompetent to me.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Sandman
The Indian state of Kerala is a communist success story. Their economy isn't so hot...

No, an economy where 60 % or so of the GDP is made up of remittances from residence abroad is hardly 'hot'... Having said that, it's more to the success of a state than its economy.

I would not think that remittances are a good resource for communist world revolution.

[Sandman]

...so what happened to the rest of that leftish, larger democracy?

Not continuing with what obviously worked seems pretty incompetent to me.

It's only obviously worked if your care about everyone, rather than just your caste/religion/ethnicity, or if you don't value economic results above everything else.

Kerala was historically fortunate as well. Traditions of tolerance and open-mindedness keep the tensions that undermine the rest of India under control. It also got lucky with some benevolent monarchs.

It's no paradise, but it's a lot better than the rest of India and the developing world.

No, an economy where 60 % or so of the GDP is made up of remittances from residence abroad is hardly 'hot'... Having said that, it's more to the success of a state than its economy.

It's never 60%. This article says that it's 22%.

newkerala.com

Still, they are important. But isn't that the case for the rest of India, with the vast numbers of underutilised graduates they produce?

[Last Conformist]

Don't dicount the benevolent aliens, Kropotkin!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sandman
It's only obviously worked if your care about everyone, rather than just your caste/religion/ethnicity, or if you don't value economic results above everything else.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Anyway, it's not about wealth. It's about the inherenet instability of capitalism. This economic system hasn't been able to go an entire decade without tripping, stumbling, or collapsing. When it does, it isn't the rulers of society who suffer, it's those on the low end of the totem pole. It's the workers who lose their jobs, homes, families, etc.

I'll grant you that one. Unfortunately, the "stability" of communism is a steady decline concealed by artificial pricing and resource allocations.

In addition, capitalists distort the political process. Look at the inordinate power of a Richard Mellon-Scaife, who so hobbled the Clinton presidency that the President was unable to do his job, which may have resulted in 9/11. Two hundred FBI agents were busing investigating the Clintons because of this man's hatred, instead of looking into people learning to fly planes but not learning how to land them. That's just one extreme example.

Whereas, in communism, instead of a Mellon-Scaife with his agenda, you get a party apparachik with his. The efficiency and benevolence of the NKVD isn't exactly a shining example, and communist theorists have always concerned themselves so much about "counterrevolutionary" activities and information control that it's hard to conceive of any communist system that doesn't rely on such agencies for control.

"Trust is good. Control is better." - Feliks Dzherzhinski.

The other side of the capitalist system is just as there's room for the Mellon-Scaife's and Fred Phelps' of the world, there's also room for the Moveon's, and alternet's of the world.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

nobody is preventing a worker from buying stocks in his company, thus becoming an owner of capital, and of the means of production.

[Kidlicious]

MtG,

The 'other side of capitalism' as you put it is insignificant. It doesn't result in anything. The capitalists still 'distort' (and I would say control) the political process.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Berz says that Communism lasted 70 years before dying out, and then you say "Lies! This is false! Communism died almost immediately!"

You have a lot to learn about making effective arguments.

That's probably the best argument I've ever seen against the "Soviet Union was never communist" argument.

political-belief-twin

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by monkspider
Whoever has all the beanie babies wins, and capitalism is winning in this regard.

I however, plan to load a tank full of beanie babies and drive in the street.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
nobody is preventing a worker from buying stocks in his company, thus becoming an owner of capital, and of the means of production.

Generally what prevents a worker from buyng stocks in his company is that if he is like most Americans, he lives paycheck to paycheck, and can't spare any money for such things.

Even for those who can afford stock (generally, in the form of a pension plan), it is very rarely voting stock. So they might have 0.0000001% of the capital in a company, but they have even less of a say in its governence.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

For the love of all that is good and holy kill this thread!

[Agathon]

The difference, however, is that capitalism does not require that the whole world fall under a singular capitalistic umbrella, and so, it can afford to have lots of flavors.

WTO, cough, cough...

[Agathon]

And the arguments about people never putting up with a future communist society make about as much sense as claiming you could seamlessly transform our contemporaries into properly functioning members of a feudal society.

[Natalinasmpf]

communism cant exist anymore. marx can no longer say that the workers of today have no access to the wealth. stock options allow the working class to own the means of production - no need for revolution.

Stock options don't really happen every time. They're not part of the minimum wage, for example, nor are they really common for every worker.

he efficiency and benevolence of the NKVD isn't exactly a shining example, and communist theorists have always concerned themselves so much about "counterrevolutionary" activities and information control that it's hard to conceive of any communist system that doesn't rely on such agencies for control.

I don't think such agencies and theories are really inherent to communism. To a control-emphasis political system, yes.

One must totally destroy the state engine during revolution, rather than try to salvage it, and get its poison.

nobody is preventing a worker from buying stocks in his company, thus becoming an owner of capital, and of the means of production.

Poverty can prevent this.