Marxism and contemporary society.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Ogie:

Just curious if you're making a conscious effort to spell it "teh" every time. You've been remarkably consistent so far.

Nope just lazy.

Why does it bother you?

Is so I'll make it a point to stop teh bad spelling.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

they didn't have the political power to do make sure that those needs where met

If they wanted political power, though agreed with the economic system, they would have let Gorbachev continue after putting down the attempted coup by the hardliners in 1991. That was Gorbachev's goal to create a democratic communism.

But the driving force of privatization was the class that was exploiting the communism system. The change in the economic system allowed them to still exploit the same people. Although I agree that a lot of people got swept up in the spirit of change and were fooled by the promises of privatization.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's ridiculous. Why would the people who were in charge and were 'exploiting the communism system' want change at all? It threatens their place.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's ridiculous. Why would the people who were in charge and were 'exploiting the communism system' want change at all? It threatens their place.

Change was inevitable. They wanted it to be in their favor.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Change may be inevitable, but a certain mode of change is not, no matter what fancy dialecticals write.

[Agathon]

The problems with Soviet Russia was one of economics, where in the 80s they actually had negative economic growth during the decade and was slowly dying

The Soviet Union was in reasonable shape going in to the 1980s. I don't think that economics had as much to do with the end of "communism" as people think.

[Dracon II]

Capitalism doesn't always lead to rational economics either. Australia is a perfect example.

In our free market, we export all our industrial raw materials (of which we have a lion's share) and we produce domestically what is clearly unsustainable and environmentally degrading (agricultural produce). We have some of the largest reserves of coal, iron ore, aluminium, uranium, gold, titanium etc etc in the world, and yet we don't have a powerful industrial sector. We have the poorest soils in the world, we're the driest continent in the world, and we have the most erratic and inclement weather conditions in the world, and yet we have a powerful agricultural sector??!!
Australia is essentially a 1st world country sitting on a 3rd world economy. It's unsustainable, and it's all thanks to capitalism.
Here's an example: we sell off our timber, from some of the finest forests in Australia, to Japan. As a landmass, we have one of the lowest levels of forest coverage in the world... and we're selling our forests to Japan, who, as far as 1st world countries go, has the highest forest coverage, a coverage that's actually growing!!! And yet, even though timber is such a scarce resource in Australia, we sell it off as cheap as chips!
If there's any economy that needs to be centrally planned it's Australia. We have the economic base with which to create a powerful industrial state.... and we could easily buy our food from a country that has the right environment to support intensive agriculture. Otherwise we're ****ed.

[Agathon]

Capitalism is rational if you want to plunder the earth to benefit a few people to the exclusion of everyone else.

[Dracon II]

well we're certainly plundering the earth in Australia. We've managed to severely endanger our environment in 200 years doing what has been sustainable in Europe for thousands of years.... and yet we still do it.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Agathon

The Soviet Union was in reasonable shape going in to the 1980s. I don't think that economics had as much to do with the end of "communism" as people think.

I do . The Soviet command economy started to fail in the 70's. Agriculture in fact never recovered from collectivisation in the 1930's. The information revolution, which was based on free exchange of ideas and decentralised networks, was the final nail in the coffin. Noone could control that.

Its no accident that the Chinese communists saw the writing on the wall and introduced market economy reforms. The Soviet party under Gorbachev tried to do similar through glasnost and perestroika but they lost control of the political process. The Chinese communists very nearly lost it too - until the 1989 Tiananmen massacre, which turned things around for them and changed the course of history.

[Sandman]

Apart from anything else, the Soviet life expectancy was going down.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Economic growth in capitalist systems is ever sustainable?

It's grown from the dawn of history until today, so the answer is maybe.

[Sikander]

Re: the capacity for change in capitalist & communist systems

I assume you guys are talking about economic systems even though the conversation seems to have spilled over half of the time into political systems. Can someone give me a short definition of what constitutes a capitalist economic system and what constitutes a communist economic system (and preferably a real world example of each) so we can acertain whether we are in fact having a meaningful discussion (and not simply a ritual combat with symbols)?

[Dracon II]

It's grown from the dawn of history until today, so the answer is maybe

Why don't you tell us what a capitalist economy is... given that you seem to already have a definition of one... a very broad and problematic one too it seems...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sikander


It's grown from the dawn of history until today, so the answer is maybe.

Ever heard of recessions?