160 replies to this topic

[Dave]

yes thats what i was saying.

anyway as for there being very poor people in the country well i thought soviet russia was full of poverty...though they tried to hide it. They were they mother country of communism as well

[ermd]

None of these countires were socialist or communist. Just because the party calls themselves "the communist party of x/y/z" does not make that country into a communist one.

How can China/Cuba/USSR have been communist countires when they had large beurocratic states. Communism calls for a society with NO leaders and NO state.

And yeah, in China there is a HUGE wealth gap that the party is doing nothing about. The same happened in the USSR, where once again, agrarian workers were left behind in society. So they are obviously NOT communist countires.

Also, on the human rights side of things, communism does not call for human rights, freedom of speech etc. to be removed. It simply happens that this has been the policy of some particular parties.

In the USSR, there was extreme poverty under Stailn's reign. A lot of people forget the immense progress made by Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev though. Their reforms brought 99.8% of Russians above the poverty line, with the 0.2% discrepency occuring due to possible Mongol nomads. Their poorly managed and inefficient economy even managed to sustain most of the eastern bloc too.

Remember, in China the party is run due to Maoist principles, which differ greatly from the Marxism-Lenninism followed by "western" communism.

[Dave]

yes but that is the only form of communism there will ever be. You will never get a country with no leaders...for a start there would be chaoes and secondly there are always people who want power.

these countries you say aren't socialist see themselves as socialist si isbn't that all that matters

[ermd]

yes but that is the only form of communism there will ever be. You will never get a country with no leaders...for a start there would be chaoes and secondly there are always people who want power.

these countries you say aren't socialist see themselves as socialist si isbn't that all that matters

That is only your opinon. Someone who believes on a communist philosophy would argue that the only way for society to be equal is to have a world without leaders. The asssumptions you make about human nature are seen by Marx as simply products of the present system where leaders are required. Under communism they wouldn't be. And how can it be a form of communism at all, if it breaks the "rules"?

And no, its NOT that these countires see themselves as socialist that matters because they are not socialist therefore rendering your argument invalid.

[Moral Fabric]

I've just joined HSN and I was guided towards this argument by a current member and friend, ermdeviation. I'm a Capitalist on a personal level and but I have to agree with some socialistic views and policies like Benefits and free healthcare, etc.

However it does not work. It is highly unreasonable to think that by turning a world into equally distributed wealth that it will work, there are people in this world that just would not conform, some people strive for more. Majoritably mankind would benefit, but in the long run it would just lead to a huge revolution because of personal wants becoming 'needs'.

Maybe it is just my view, but I cannot see a world working purely on Socialism or Capitalism, a blend will need to be created, a fair one, where it is possible to progress in life and become wealthy without being taxed 90%, but with poverty and crime non existent and human rights adhered to.

It i this Utopian situation that, both sides of the coin, whether Socialist or Capitalist, strive for, but arrogance causes them to rarely see the advantage of the 'opposing' side. A blend must be created, fairly to achieve what both parties are after before another cold war is initiated.

Thanks for reading,
Regards,

Andi

[ermd]

Maybe it is just my view, but I cannot see a world working purely on Socialism or Capitalism, a blend will need to be created, a fair one, where it is possible to progress in life and become wealthy without being taxed 90%, but with poverty and crime non existent and human rights adhered to.

It is just your view We live in a country with a mixed economy and it has not ended poverty or crime. To me the Welfare State has served to prove a point: that watered down, social-democractic policies will not acheive their Socialist objectives because they still rely on a capitalist economy - an economy which breeds inequality and injustice.

Look at it even from a practical perspective. Capitalism is an economic system which involves exploitaion at some point along the way. It is by this exploitation that corporations find their profit. It is inevitable that one day, capitalism will implode upon itself.

China and India are growing at an amazing rate. They have cheap labour, decent education and modern technology. Before long, our economy will not be able to compete with them.

[Dave]

which makes china and russia examples of exploitation you rattle on about doesnt it

A capitalist state will never implode by its very defination

As fro a compromise well thats new labour isnt it

[Moral Fabric]

Maybe it is just my view, but I cannot see a world working purely on Socialism or Capitalism, a blend will need to be created, a fair one, where it is possible to progress in life and become wealthy without being taxed 90%, but with poverty and crime non existent and human rights adhered to.

We live in a country with a mixed economy and it has not ended poverty or crime. To me the Welfare State has served to prove a point: that watered down, social-democractic policies will not acheive their Socialist objectives because they still rely on a capitalist economy - an economy which breeds inequality and injustice.

That's just your opinion though, and granted. mine is an opinion also

[ermd]

which makes china and russia examples of exploitation you rattle on about doesnt it

A capitalist state will never implode by its very defination

As fro a compromise well thats new labour isnt it

How many times to I have to repeat this to you Dave: China and Russia are not and have never been Socialist states.

And Capitalism is going to implode by definition. You must know very little of economics. Working by the law of profit, you have to charge as a high a price as possible to survive in business. Obviously, business's workers are also its consumers (on a global scale). You are paying them the least you can and yet charging them the most you can. This is why exploitation takes place - for the owner to profit they must always pay the worker less than the value of their labour.

At present, the exploitation takes place mostly in developing countries eg. China, India, S.Korea (in the past). The problem Capitalism faces is that these countries are getting wealthier all the time, and will soon enough want to be consumers themselves. This will lead to massive labour shortages as they are unwilling to continue to under-sell their labour. It is inevitable that capitalism will fail as an economic sytem unless you are willing to accept violence as a method of repressing these people.

New Labour definately are not a compromise - they're a fully fledged bourgeoisie capitalist party. Old Labour were much closer to a compromise.

[Dave]

OLD Labour a compromise Dont be daft

Its like a civil servent from 1949 said

"They were a kick in the pants away from full on communism"

[bred]

Since when was a kick in the pants used as a unit of measurement?

[Dave]

since 1949

[ermd]

OLD Labour a compromise    Dont be daft

Its like a civil servent from 1949 said

"They were a kick in the pants away from full on communism"

Old Labour were a social democratic party - and as such did not see social and economic revoltuion as a method of change. Instead they favoured slow, gradual change from within the confines of our present electoral system. Socialism is a revolutionary political ideology, reasoning that our present bourgeoisie capitalist system could never be used to the benefit of the majority.

Old Labour also gave weight to the capitalist system in their policies - this in itself is a slap in the face to a true socialist. They valued the price mechanism as a basis to run the economy on - once again, a totally un-socialist idea. Old Labour were not that far left of centre in the late 40's - somehwere similar to the Green Party nowadays in economic terms.

Hope that's cleared things up for you, Dave.

[cork screw]

Just wondering what benefits socialism could do for us if we voted for them? Since you say socialism isn't anything Communism.

[Dave]

But your wrong

How is forcefully taking 14 towns over and rebuilding them mainstream politcs never mind the NHS

Old labour was further left than the liberals who paved the way for the welfare state so obviously they were extreame

Without a war labour would never have got into power hell there leader even admitted it

"bread and butter plus a dream"

Where did the dream come from...the war (and the beveridge report)

[bred]

Old labour was further left than the liberals who paved the way for the welfare state so obviously they were extreame

Having more leftist policies than just those of the Liberal Reforms at the start of the last century makes you an extremist?
I would hope not.

[Dave]

it makes you more extreame and yes as far as most were concerned at the time they were extreamist and unvotable because of it

[ermd]

Indeed, considering the Liberals have always been supporters of capitalism as an economic system! Dave, you seem to be unable to comprehend the idea that social policies do not affect left/right standing. Left wing and right wing are simply measures of where economic control lies. Maybe this will help you

[ermd]

Now, considering Old Labour were similar to the Greens, they were as far left as New Labour are right. Extremeist

[cork screw]

Extremist.

So are you saying socialist party are the minority? As though don't affect.