They're gonna party like it's 1899...

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Well, that's another way of putting it.

Yes. It's the proper way of putting it.

I would argue that at the time of the initial reforms, there was little difference between the capitalist class and the governing class. Capitalism (to personify it) feared social instability.

Use the same logic in regards to China. You'll come up with something rather funny.

Or you could just say Capitalism is Capitalism. It's not Communism. It's not Social Democracy. Crazy... I know...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Social Democracy is a form that capitalism developed, by incorporating some ideas of socialists, to mitigate some of its worst effects and to help it survive.

Communism is not state intervention. Factamundo.

You should have noted that I said society was more communistic, not communist. Communistic policy is taking control of the means of production from the capitalist. Social security is that sort of intervention.

If you don't understand ze role of ze verking klass as ze producers of vealth in society, you vill not understend vhy zey alone have ze power to change ze mode of production. [\uncle karl]

I understand the role of the working class just fine. I just don't think you need a class cohesion to have a communist society. A democratic society is much more necessary and desirable. I realize that Marx talked about class cohesion, but then that doesn't seem to be a cause for change at this time.

I'm not a communist, but I'm more of a Marxist than our misguided friend here.

You most certainly do not. I don't agree with everything Marx said. That doesn't mean that you understand more than I do.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
By the way Kid, who's that in the avatar? Who ever it is, they are easier on the eye than that demented cat.

The Material Girl.

[Heraclitus]

Communism thread!

Long live the revolution of 1917!

Let's party!

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Communistic policy is taking control of the means of production from the capitalist. Social security is that sort of intervention.

Social security is not public ownership of capital. It's a system of taxation to fund state provision of certain services. In fact, nationalisation in many countries has been reversed in recent decades.

I understand the role of the working class just fine. I just don't think you need a class cohesion to have a communist society. A democratic society is much more necessary and desirable. I realize that Marx talked about class cohesion, but then that doesn't seem to be a cause for change at this time.

Communism can't be imposed from above, it has to be built from below, via a transitionary stage of socialism. The workers' Soviets in 1917 were all about this.

Other classes in society, so the theory goes, may or may not oppose the ruling class, but their interests may concide with that ruling class so they cannot be relied upon.

You most certainly do not. I don't agree with everything Marx said. That doesn't mean that you understand more than I do.

AFAICS you're not a communist, Kid, but a radical. You cannot be a communist and a feminist and a green and an anarchist, yet these are all hats you appear to wear at times, if I am not mistaken. Today's anti-capitalism frequently expresses itself through such a mish-mash of ideas and ideologies. Real Marxists and communists are much clearer in their analysis, and uncompromising in their rejection of rival radical ideologies.

Marxism is a tool of analysis with the point being "to change it". I see communism as one of his ideas but not the only prescription deduceable from his philosophy.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Aeson
Yes. It's the proper way of putting it.

Going back to your original statement : "Democracies have adopted Social reforms to offset Capitalism's shortcomings." - this seems to suggest that capitalism is something that happened to democracies, where democracy is the system (like a govt choice in Civ).

I would see it the other way round, where democracy is something that happened to capitalism, as the system evolved in order to survive and flourish.

In terms of western historical development, I would say that capitalism was a necessary pre-requisite for democracy, relative to the feudal and monarchial systems that preceded it.

wrt China - it seems to resemble 19th century pre-democratic capitalism to me. It needs an organised labour movement to force progressive social changes.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Going back to your original statement : "Democracies have adopted Social reforms to offset Capitalism's shortcomings." - this seems to suggest that capitalism is something that happened to democracies, where democracy is the system (like a govt choice in Civ).

No.

"Social reforms were adopted by Democracies"
"Capitalism is something that happened to Democracies"

Can you really not see the difference between those two statements?

I would see it the other way round, where democracy is something that happened to capitalism, as the system evolved in order to survive and flourish.

Democracy is a form of government. It didn't "happen to capitalism". It "happened" to the forms of governments that proceeded it, usually in the form of revolutions.

In terms of western historical development, I would say that capitalism was a necessary pre-requisite for democracy, relative to the feudal and monarchial systems that preceded it.

Classical Greece was Capitalistic?

wrt China - it seems to resemble 19th century pre-democratic capitalism to me. It needs an organised labour movement to force progressive social changes.

So what you're saying is that Capitalism is really just Communism. (And eventually we work our way back until we get to the silly conclusion that everything is "Tribalism"... or whatever pre-dated that.)

You sound American. Trying to twist words to credit Capitalism with all that's good with the world...

[Cort Haus]

Aeson,

Economic systems, or 'modes of production' are, in my view, the focus of an analysis of historical development over the last thousand years, rather than systems of goverment. Governments manage economic systems, and reflect the requirements of those systems.

I don't see modern democracy to be a continuation of the Greek model. When I said that "capitalism was a necessary pre-requisite for democracy" I was referring to post-feudal, rather than ancient history. Greece was never a full democracy as it never got as far as incorporating women in its democratic model. Besides, democracy is not just about voting, as a bi-party electoral system can end up offering the population almost no more choice in alternative futures than an election for competing factions in a one-party state.

Furthermore, China was never communist, in a full Marxist understanding of the word. Never has China been a workers' state, and nor was the USSR apart from the very early post-revolutionary period. I believe that Capitalist China, like the 19th century West, will ultimately need democratic reforms for its own prosperity.

I don't see where I am "Trying to twist words to credit Capitalism with all that's good with the world". That is not my position. I see Capitalism as a progressive improvement on what went before, as Marx did. Marx also believed that Capitalism would eventually be superceded by a better system, and I agree with that also. It might take a thousand years, but I believe that Capitalism is a stage in the development of humanity, and not a pinnacle.

Democracy has evolved slowly in the West, and Universal Suffrage didn't happen in my country until after WW1. The grip of the old bourgeois elite wasn't broken until ~15 years after the end of WW2. Other countries are treading their own paths. Democracy is a work-in-progress, and even in those countries who allocate themselves the right to go to war againt countries they deem democratically inferior, it is as full of weaknesses and failings as Capitalism itself.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I don't see where I am "Trying to twist words to credit Capitalism with all that's good with the world".

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Social Democracy is a form that capitalism developed, by incorporating some ideas of socialists, to mitigate some of its worst effects and to help it survive.

Capitalism did not develop Social Democracy. Social Democracy evolved over time as Democractic governments adopted Social reforms specifically to address some of the egregarious aspects of Capitalism (among other things).

You on the other hand say Capitalism forced Democracy to adopt Social reforms. The complete opposite of what actually happened. (At least if we're not going to say Slavery developed Emancipation...)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Social security is not public ownership of capital. It's a system of taxation to fund state provision of certain services. In fact, nationalisation in many countries has been reversed in recent decades.

Do you not understand the words that I am using? I said "control" not "own." Using taxation is fiscal policy used control the means of production and the distribution of goods and services.

Communism can't be imposed from above, it has to be built from below, via a transitionary stage of socialism. The workers' Soviets in 1917 were all about this.

Other classes in society, so the theory goes, may or may not oppose the ruling class, but their interests may concide with that ruling class so they cannot be relied upon.

mkay, we'll that isn't very democratic now is it?

AFAICS you're not a communist, Kid, but a radical. You cannot be a communist and a feminist and a green and an anarchist, yet these are all hats you appear to wear at times, if I am not mistaken. Today's anti-capitalism frequently expresses itself through such a mish-mash of ideas and ideologies. Real Marxists and communists are much clearer in their analysis, and uncompromising in their rejection of rival radical ideologies.

Marxism is a tool of analysis with the point being "to change it". I see communism as one of his ideas but not the only prescription deduceable from his philosophy.

Do you believe everything that Adam Smith said, as if he were a prophet? Why?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I would see it the other way round, where democracy is something that happened to capitalism, as the system evolved in order to survive and flourish.

The two are not compatable in the long run. In fact, the only place in time where they are compatable is in the early stages of capitalism before economies of scale are achieved.

"Wherever there is great wealth there is always great inequality"

- Adam Smith

[GePap]

Originally posted by Aeson




Capitalism did not develop Social Democracy. Social Democracy evolved over time as Democractic governments adopted Social reforms specifically to address some of the egregarious aspects of Capitalism (among other things).

You on the other hand say Capitalism forced Democracy to adopt Social reforms. The complete opposite of what actually happened. (At least if we're not going to say Slavery developed Emancipation...)

I agree with this. Social Democracy began as an attempt by conservatives to stave off socialism by adopting some of its basic ideas. There is no reason to think that capitalism without the criticism from communism would have developed anything like social democratic systems.

and I am glad that at least C understands the difference between Marxism and Leninism and Maoism. Too many posters who bash communism here conflate those notions, which is false.

I would agree that Leninism, or any belief that a political vanguard can guide the masses towards Communism has been more than disproven by history. That by itself does not serve as an argument against Communism's critique of Capitalism. It only serves to show that Lenin and those who agreed with him on this point were clearly wrong.