socialism, property, and the state

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The other point that I would make is that while there are short-term swings in politics, the long-term trend is towards socialism.

This trend toward socialism is apparently realized by tax-induced redistribution of wealth, not by increasing the number of public-owned enterprises. This is an important detail.

David, like so many pro-capitalists, thinks of the here and now as eternal, both into the recesses of time and on into the infinate future.

Nothing is eternal. But speaking of "here and now", it seems that public-owned enterprises are chronically inefficient.

[Jon Miller]

I did not give you reasons in my posts Che

I apologise and cllaim tiredness

I will reply in more detail later

Jon Miller

[GeneralTacticus]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


In what part of Europe was Nazi Germany? The West!

Nazi Germany was the anithesis of everything the West stood for. Capitalism was tolerated only because it was convenient, there wasn't even a pretension to democracy, and the power of the state was unlimited.

Who was constantly verbally threatening to attack the other party? The West!

When was the first time the West or any country thereof threatened to invade the Soviet Union or any of it's allies (and no, denouncing the Soviet invasion of Afganistan does not count. Nor does the business with North Korea count, as the justification for that state was very flimsy to start with).

Who kept sending terrorists in to destroy their infrastructure? The West!

Who, which terrorists, which infrastructure, and when?

Which side threatened the other verbally with nuclear destruction? The West!

Are you referring to General MacArthurs comments during the Korean War? Quite frankly, I think he was a nut by that point, even if he was a good general.

The USSR had good reason to be paranoid. The West really was out to get them.

You could say exactly the same thing from the West's point of view. The Soviets made no secret that they were out to get the West. Besides, I recall you've stated before that Soviet action against the West was sparked by Western action against the USSR. This is not true.

While the West didn't trust the Soviets much (especially Churchill), they had no interest in antagonising them. If the West was determined to destroy the USSR, why do you think they let the Soviets set up puppet states in Eastern Europe and North Korea? Churchill made an agreement with Stalin that pretty much gave them a free hand in Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania (I think it was).

Moreover, the Soveits refused American Marshall aid for themselves and for their satellite states, soley because the Americans wanted, in return, for the Russians to let Soviet citizens read American books, watch American films, etc. In other words, they wanted Stalin to give his people some more freedom. Of course Stalin would have none of this and just turned it down. I can hardly see any reason why the West would see this as anything other than hostile.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Yust a quick reply to original post.

that is a great idea but human beings being human cannot resist the temptaion of power, that is meaning of life to many (people). And if you were a good communist leader, some ******* would kill you and make the system follow his needs. And communist system where you have one central governing system is much easier to abuse than the capitalist / democratic that may be abusing by default but has inbuilt mechanisms that prevent the abuse of going too far, or if it goes too far it has mechanisms to react on that and counteract it.

Regarding the control of the rich and powerful this present system went the furthest, and i doubt that system wise it can be much better. Perhaps in US a bit less power to the president and similar but just a variation of the present. What I think would make property distributed much better is that the profits are shared by law between the inverstors and workers. That would make for a much better distribution of property, decrease the gap in wealth and give more power to the masses in one short strike. That would upset the governing elite but wouldn't change present sytem at all.

Only a new government (with overwhelming majority and with socialist intentions) could do it, but don't count on it anytime soon. I think that the benefts to society could be easily seen and quickly realised without any major turbulence. But well who knows it surely ain't as easy as it sounds.

Anyway in that system every company would have a default system to tie organisation and efficiency of the workforce as a whole with a reward.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Australia is socialist-leaning.

Say what?

Of all the "Western" democracies... Australia is the 2nd most right-leaning (after the US).

And I'm not really sure you can call Germany, UK, France, Italy, etc... left-leaning. The parties in power in France, while called social democrats are practioners of the 'third way' which is basically Clintonism/Blairism... not really socialist-leaning .

And Italy just went right, Germany is considered to be rapidly moving right, France will have rightward-looking President for another term. Blair in the UK is a third way candidate. Canada is not left from Europe's POV. Russia is ruled by a right wing President.

Where are all these socialist leaning parties that are running Western democracies?

[MORON]

Is whining a natural right?

*looks at my own status.....pulling a dookie seems so hard

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Nazi Germany was the anithesis of everything the West stood for.

It doesn't matter. Germany was (and still is) part of Western Europe, even under the Nazis.

Capitalism was tolerated only because it was convenient, there wasn't even a pretension to democracy, and the power of the state was unlimited.

Capitalism wasn't tollerated by Nazism, it was the reason for Nazism. It was the capitalists who put the Nazis in power. Capitalists gave them the money, loaned them the cars, gave them the airplanes to fly around Germany for their campaigns. It was capitalists who opened their factories to the Nazis so they could beat the crap out of their workers. And it was the capitalists who benfitted most from Nazi rule, as the unions were crushed and replaced with subservient union, profittablity was restored, and even guaranteed by subsidies from the state, slaves were provided at state cost, and finally new areas were added to the German empire for German capitalists to exploit.

When was the first time the West or any country thereof threatened to invade the Soviet Union or any of it's allies.

Well, leaving aside the actual invasions from 1918-1921, the US ambassador to the UN threatened the Soviets with nuclear war in 1946 over the USSR's continued occupation of Northern Persia, which began during wartime. Patton contually made threats to attack the Soviets. The US did bomb the Soviets during the Korean War, near Vladivostok. The US threatened to attack during the Berlin Crisis. It continually broadcast on Radio Free Europe that if the Eastern European nations would revolt, that the West would intervene to save them (which it never did, despite several revolts--guess socialist revolts weren't what the US had in mind). Reagan threatened to attack the USSR constantly. Unless you're deaf, dumb, and blind, Western belligerency towards the USSR is plain for all to see.

Who, which terrorists, which infrastructure, and when?

From Western sponsored former White army members to the CIA recruiting former fascist soviets (such as the Urakainians who helped with the extermination of Jews), people were sent into Eastern Euope and the USSR to blow up electric lines, power plants, damns, bridges, burn busses and otherwise sabotage public transportation. Even doing little things like stopping up toilets in factories and public restrooms.

Are you referring to General MacArthurs comments during the Korean War? Quite frankly, I think he was a nut by that point,

It doesn't matter. He made the threats and was still allowed to command. If a Soviet general was threatening to attack the US, and he wasn't relived of his command, what message would that send to the US?

You could say exactly the same thing from the West's point of view. The Soviets made no secret that they were out to get the West.

You could say that, but since Stalin's "Socialism in One Country" obviously means no external revoltuion, you'd be wrong. The Soviets, from very early on, tried to get along with the West, even if at first it was merely to buy time. Under Stalin and his successors, it became permanent policy. Everytime the Soviets stretched out a hand of friendship, it was rebuffed.

If the West was determined to destroy the USSR, why do you think they let the Soviets set up puppet states in Eastern Europe and North Korea?

Because no Western power could have justified attacking the USSR in 1945. It took several years to convince the people of the West that the Soviets were a new enemy. The Soviets also had the Communist Parties of Italy, Greece, and elsewhere back away from their wartime victories. It was the Communists who liberated Greece and Italy from the Nazis, not the Allies, and yet Stalin had them surrender to the Allies. He tried to do the same in China, but Mao didn't listen fortunately.

[chequita guevara]

Hmmm, apparently I'm a union member now. I just joined the Graphic Artists Guild, only to discover that the GAG is United AutoWorkers local 3030.

chegitz is an autoworker

[Sprayber]

che. What guarentees do you have that your version of how things should be done will be any better than how its being done now?

I have noticed that communists never really put forth a solid plan of action. They talk a lot about the workers and corporations and "democracy" but there is never is something solid to grasp onto. That may be why you guys usually end up killing each other after you get into power. Because through all your years of the "revolution" you never really agree on what needs to be done.


One more thing. Are there actually still people that believe that the Soviet Union was just misunderstood? Any system that allows one individule to accomulate that much power without checks and balances is bound for failure or prolonged agony. Actually both. If you make excuses for the Soviet Union, then the Germans are able to make excuses for Nazi Germany. Both turned about to be amazingly similar dispite supposedly being on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Moderation is the key. You radicals just like to **** it up for everyone.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
the US ambassador to the UN threatened the Soviets with nuclear war in 1946 over the USSR's continued occupation of Northern Persia, which began during wartime.

They had no right to still be in that area, che.

The US threatened to attack during the Berlin Crisis.

... in response to the humanitarian crisis that was developing.

[David Floyd]

chegitz,

Because they're wrong. If they proved natural rights then let me ask you this, what does it look like? How does it feel? Is it tangible? If not, can we build a machine that will detect it? If not, then they cannot have proven that it exists.

By your argument love doesn't exist.
Of course, it does, and is self-evident in the actions and thoughts of people. It even exists outside of society.

No, the problem is you're trying to put 21st century morals on a situation from before 8,000 BCE. I'm trying to show you that it doesn't work.

No, I'm showing you that no matter what, the unjustified killing of someone cannot be justified, and is, in fact, always wrong. You yourself admitted this, by stating you'd have a problem with someone trying to kill you. This implies there is something wrong with that action, and unless you are horribly illogical and inconsistent, it applies to others besides yourself as well.

Not necessarily. If you are raised to believe that is the way the world is, then that is likely what you will believe.

That's basically what I said.

Just as most people in the West belive that capitalism is the natural order, rather than scientifically understanding that it is only a phase of human society.

Capitalism is of course a phase in human society - it has not been around forever. On the other hand, I believe it to be the final and most perfect phase.

It doesn't matter. Germany was (and still is) part of Western Europe, even under the Nazis.

It all depends on how you define it. Japan and Australia are considered Western, even though they're on the other side of the world.

Capitalism wasn't tollerated by Nazism, it was the reason for Nazism. It was the capitalists who put the Nazis in power. Capitalists gave them the money, loaned them the cars, gave them the airplanes to fly around Germany for their campaigns. It was capitalists who opened their factories to the Nazis so they could beat the crap out of their workers. And it was the capitalists who benfitted most from Nazi rule, as the unions were crushed and replaced with subservient union, profittablity was restored, and even guaranteed by subsidies from the state, slaves were provided at state cost, and finally new areas were added to the German empire for German capitalists to exploit.

Actually, WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles were the reasons for Nazism. Many capitalists did support the Nazis, at first, because they saw the Nazis as a way to rebuild Germany. Hitler was certainly very good at deceit. It's worth noting, though, that both capitalists and German nobility both resisted Hitler when his plans became clear. Schindler, for example, was a capitalist, yet he resisted the Nazis and saved Jews.

the US ambassador to the UN threatened the Soviets with nuclear war in 1946 over the USSR's continued occupation of Northern Persia, which began during wartime.

I've heard that before, but never seen a source. Not that I doubt you, but the Soviets wouldn't have been threatened if they were not overtly aggressive to begin with. It's also worth noting that as the Western Allies disarmed and demobilized after WW2, the Soviets kept millions of men under arms - no real demobilization at all.

The US did bomb the Soviets during the Korean War, near Vladivostok.

Cry me a river - Soviet aircraft and pilots were killing Americans.

The US threatened to attack during the Berlin Crisis.

The Soviets were trying to starve West Berlin civilians into submission.

It continually broadcast on Radio Free Europe that if the Eastern European nations would revolt, that the West would intervene to save them

So? What's wrong with revolting against occupiers?

Reagan threatened to attack the USSR constantly.

Get real - Reagan would never have started a war with the Soviets.

From Western sponsored former White army members to the CIA recruiting former fascist soviets (such as the Urakainians who helped with the extermination of Jews), people were sent into Eastern Euope and the USSR to blow up electric lines, power plants, damns, bridges, burn busses and otherwise sabotage public transportation. Even doing little things like stopping up toilets in factories and public restrooms.

As opposed to the Russians, who did nothing of the kind, especially not stealing the secrets of the atomic bomb

It doesn't matter. He made the threats and was still allowed to command. If a Soviet general was threatening to attack the US, and he wasn't relived of his command, what message would that send to the US?

Actually he was relieved of command in the Korean War.

You could say that, but since Stalin's "Socialism in One Country" obviously means no external revoltuion, you'd be wrong. The Soviets, from very early on, tried to get along with the West, even if at first it was merely to buy time. Under Stalin and his successors, it became permanent policy. Everytime the Soviets stretched out a hand of friendship, it was rebuffed.

That would explain the invasions of Poland, the Baltic States, Finland, Poland again, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Iran, and others, right?

Monkspider,

Hmm, I suppose you are referring to the "Le Pen" incident. It is true that Le Pen did do surprisingly well, but France does not have the two-party structure that the US does. Most of the votes were gathered by leftist parties, even parties such as the "Revolutionary Communist League" and the Neo-Trotskeyists did very commendably. Italy had a Communist leader recently, Germany's Communist party made huge inroads in the last parliament election (they may have actually made the most inroads of any party, my memory is somewhat hazy). Countries such as Finland and Sweden are blatantly socialist-leaning. Australia is socialist-leaning. So Fascist Le Pen can be largely viewed as a fluke in that regard, a fluke resulting from the highly splintered left.

Le Pen, also Haider, and there have been numerous threads on Poly lately about how right wingers have been gaining power.

In regards to the US, I do think that an arguement can be made that we have been moving away from it in the past fifteen years or so. But in the larger picture, we are a lot closer than we were one hundred years ago. The rise of Corporate power in the past decade is also possible to have a huge backlash effect. Let's just see what the next couple decades hold

Hmmm, you are correct in that there are socialist aspects of the US, put in place by FDR and LBJ, but the US is nowhere near abolishing private property, and running as a Socialist is political suicide.

I think it's fair to say that, aside from a few localized incidents such as the United States in the fifteen years or so, the industrialized world as a whole is considerably closer to socialism now then we were one hundred years ago. That is virtually inarguable.

I would agree that Europe has become more socialist. This is not natural progression, though, but rather backlash from and reaction to the World Wars.

Ramo,

You're confusing two things: legal rights and moral rights. If there are no legal rights to an act, then undermining an act is not illegal. Legal rights are indeed defined by the society.

Where did I bring legality into it?

Moral rights are defined by the individual, who is shaped by the society. If I think something is immoral, it is according to me. What you believe is moral or immoral doesn't change my beliefs.

However, if you believed that murder was moral, it still wouldn't be so.

We've been through this before.
Murder is defined as an illegal killing, which may be moral IMO.
If you define murder as an immoral killing, as you did in the other thread, you're getting into circular logic and don't prove anything at all.

Murder CAN be illegal killing, but a better definition is unjustified killing. And it proves that there are certain absolutes, by definition.

They're determined by the state, the society, and the individual, not nature.

I disagree. Murder is wrong because it violates natural rights, not because the government says it is.

So did the capitalists. Liberty is a pipe dream except under socialism.

Socialism is by definition not liberty because it involves massive amounts of coercion.

Blisterz,

The best slave is one that thinks he is free.

That's no argument - you're basically refuting my refutation by saying I'm brainwashed. Come on

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sprayber
che. What guarentees do you have that your version of how things should be done will be any better than how its being done now?

Absolutely none. Just because you try your damedest doesn't mean you'll succeed. However, you can't succeed if you don't try. Every early attempt at capitalist democracy failed, doesn't mean that it didn't eventually work things out. It took hundreds of years, and some very horrible things were done in its name, but I doubt very few of us would prefer to go back to feudalism, just because of The French Terror, American Slavery and Civil War, Cromwell, etc.

That may be why you guys usually end up killing each other after you get into power. Because through all your years of the "revolution" you never really agree on what needs to be done.

It's an interesting thought, but the rise of socialist dictatorships has less to do with everyone disaagreeing and more to do with the extraordinary pressures these countries face. Look at how civil liberties in the US shrank (only a little) in the wake of 9/11. With each successive terrorist attack (and one accidental plane explosion), our liberties have been curtailed slightly and the power of the state to intrude upon our lives has grown. Imagine if this were constant, if the Republic were seriously threatened with dissolution. The Consitiution would be ignored completely until the crisis had passed.

One more thing. Are there actually still people that believe that the Soviet Union was just misunderstood?

It depends upon what you mean by misunderstood. There are those who believe that Stalin was the right guy and he was wonderful, and all those stories about the Collectivisation and mass murders are capitalist propaganda. I think the truth lies somewhere between the two, there was a lot of unnecessary killing, but it didn't reach the heights that most want to claim for it.

I do believe that the average person misunderstood the international intentions of the USSR because they were deliberately mislead by their own leaders. The historical record shows that the Soviets were far less agressive than the United States (the US made 4 times the interventions in foreign countries during the period of the USSR's existence). It is well known the the US deliberately plaid up the danger of the USSR, claiming bomber gaps, missile gaps, tank gaps, and fighter gaps, that all were later discovered to have been fabrications (generally leading to a massive US military build up of whatever product the company for which the analyist was working produced.).

If you make excuses for the Soviet Union, then the Germans are able to make excuses for Nazi Germany. Both turned about to be amazingly similar dispite supposedly being on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Cromwell in England, Louis Napoleon in France's 2nd Republic. It's not ideology but the social situation and the opportunity to take control.

[Arrian]

I value liberty over equality. I really don't think you can have both. Let me explain:

Human beings are selfish beings. This is our nature. Some of us more so than others, but the fact remains that, if given freedom, people will most often make decisions that they believe will benifit them.

Accordingly, democracy opens the door to inequality. Therefore, in order to have a communist state, it cannot be democratic. And that, as Sprayber mentioned, will result sooner or later in something approximating the USSR. I don't want to live in such a society. Further, I don't believe the communists have ever come up with a counter to the inevitable inefficiency caused by communism - people who are guaranteed a paycheck will not work very hard. I should say most people, not all.

I believe that the government should attempt to ensure equal opportunity for its citizens. By this I mean free education based upon merit. So everyone has a chance, if they apply themselves.

On medical care... well, in principle I agree that all people should be afforded basic medical coverage, but there are some pratical problems with this approach. This stemms from some of the weaknesses of capitalism. Whenever the government steps in and subsidizes something (which is essentially what socialized medicine is), all that happens is the provides jack up prices. Look at the cost of prescription drugs in the US. Therefore, this has to be studied some more. I don't have the answers... and I'm distinctly uneasy about the idea of the government regulating prices. At that point, the government might as well take over production of medical equipment and medical services directly... and man, I don't really trust the a government employee to perform heart surgery on me, ya know?

I think the goals of a democratic society should be to promote equality to the extent that it is possible without unduly (subjective, of course) restricting liberty.

Now you can return to your regularly scheduled debate

-Arrian

[David Floyd]

It is well known the the US deliberately plaid up the danger of the USSR, claiming bomber gaps, missile gaps, tank gaps, and fighter gaps

Actually the missile gap was a political ploy by JFK to defeat Nixon, because he knew Nixon could not contradict him without divulging classified information.
As for tank and fighter gaps, it is very clear that the Soviets had more of both, but especially many more able to immediately intervene in Europe.

French Terror, American Slavery and Civil War, Cromwell

What do those things have to do with capitalism?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
Human beings are selfish beings. This is our nature [...]

[...] among many, many other things. It is hardly our most compelling motive. In fact, it is considered rather rude by most people. Some societies expelled people who were too greedy. The most compelling aspect of human nature (aside from food, sleep, excreting, etc), is our need for social interaction. While greed is a part of our nature, it tends to cause disharmony, and thus limits our ability to interact with other members of our species. Thus, we learn very early in life that obeying that impulse is not very helpful to us.

Accordingly, democracy opens the door to inequality.

Inequality existed before democracy and without democracy in the current age. It will continue to exist under communism, just in a different form.

Therefore, in order to have a communist state, it cannot be democratic.

Nonsense. The opposite is true. A communist state must be democratic or it would enable a privledged layer to emerge. It is only by the political, social, and economic democracy of all can this be prevented.

And that, as Sprayber mentioned, will result sooner or later in something approximating the USSR.

The USSR was not inevitable but the outcome of specific historical factors. It only ended up the way it did because of the hostility of the capitalist powers and the inexperience of the Communists leading the revolution. Had they properly understood the dangers that the bureaucracy represented, they would have fought it far more dillegently, rather than waking up to the danger only when it was too late.