Socialism v capitalism

[Nick Armstrong]

Don't jump, Caliban, you have so much to live for.

Fear not, I recovered it instantly, after I stopped reading...

[aeolium]

Clearly you don't. But it does depend on what you are and aren't willing to accept as historical evidence. Capitalism is obviously an advance on the social organisations which preceded it, in many ways I presume I don't need to list, and was a necessary stage in social evolution. The historical evidence also points, for example, to (a) the preponderance of cooperative types of social organisation (whatever their size) over probably the majority of human (pre)history, and (b) periodic fundamental changes in the way people conceived of social relations (and indeed themselves as human beings also).

I don't disagree with that, but I am thinking particularly of the historical evidence relating to states which have modelled themselves on the Marxist or Marxist-Leninist transitional model, even if not purely communist since a communist state is arguably an oxymoron. In these states (and I'm not sure that Kerala could be considered as one of them as it appears to have more of a democratic socialist form not incompatible with capitalism), I'm not aware of any case where the final stage of Marx's communism, the withering away of the state leaving that "free association", has been achieved even partially. I don't find that surprising as it seems very unlikely for something like that to happen in modern, highly complex societies. Another phenomenon is that several societies which adopted that Marxist-Leninist model either following revolution, war or occupation - notably the states of the former Soviet Union and satellites, China and Vietnam - have reintroduced capitalist forms even while retaining a powerful state grip on the direction of policy.

Personally, I don't believe that Marx's model for transition to communism is desirable, or that his model for the final phase of communism is achievable, however important his insights about capitalism. I incline more towards some form of democratic socialism.

[Resurrection Man]

.....And we might mention Venezuela too, .....

Ah yes...from the Guardian 2007

These are the bulletins of Radio Caracas Television, the country's most influential private network. The theme is consistent: President Hugo Chávez is leading the country to ruin and if he is not stopped Venezuela will become a Cuba-style dictatorship.
At midnight on May 27, however, RCTV will be stopped. Its bleak bulletins silenced because the government is refusing to renew its broadcast licence. Critics say an authoritarian hammer is crushing free speech and what is left of Venezuela's democracy. Supporters say the government is right to replace a channel notorious for lies, manipulation and anti-Chávez propaganda.


And from here http://www.demdigest.net/blog/2011/0...-failed-state/

He told newly-elected opposition deputies he was willing to moderate recently acquired powers to rule by decree, which bypass the congress for 18 months,


Looks like the Guardian was right.

At least we here in the capitalist West have free speech.

[ahinton]

It really isn't true that we all aspire to the same things and are therefore consumed with "envy" at those who have the things that we don't !
Sure, I would rather like to go and spend a bit on esoteric microphones but am not "envious" of those who have them
similarly my objections to the royal family are not born of "envy"

Whilst I take a very different perspective on such matters to the one that you take, I do agree that the "politics of envy" stuff tends all too often to get overplayed by certain people as some kind of would-be endorsement of what they have to say against those of socialist persuasion; whilst I don't buy much of the socialist take on "wealth", it has never particularly struck me that such ideas on it are fuelled principally or even at all by mere envy.

In more extreme examples this (I think this is the right phrase ?) cognitive dissonance accounts for the inability of many involved in politics to understand at all how other people think. USA (and to some degree UK) foreign policy being a prime example , it simply is impossible to comprehend that some people in the world don't want 500 TV channels, microwaves or big flash cars.

Indeed; a sad reflection on a disproportionate number of those "many involved in politics", it seems to me.

[ahinton]

Generally communists and anarchists are in agreement about the desirability of a society of equals, but disagree about how to achieve it. The idea that what anarchists want is "chaos" is quite silly, but scottycelt probably doesn't know any anarchists or doesn't listen to the ones he does know.

I agree with the latter part of this, but where I don't see eye to eye with you is in the notion of "a society of equals" (irrespective of its perceived desirability or otherwise), because "equality" of anything inevitably has its limits prescribed by the great differences in people's aims and aspirations, abilities, needs and desires, outlook, etc.

Conservatives so often invoke the idea of "envy". Is this because they judge everyone by their own standards (son, I didn't get where I am today without being jealous of people better off than me) as MrGG suggests? Perhaps RM could enlighten us on this.

Whilst I'm not claiming the ability to enlighten anyone on this myself, there is, as I've already said, too much of this "politics of envy" stuff in circulation and it invariably hinders and obscures a proper understanding of realities, although I would add that, in my experience, it's not only encountered among Conservatives!

[ahinton]

I don't disagree with that, but I am thinking particularly of the historical evidence relating to states which have modelled themselves on the Marxist or Marxist-Leninist transitional model, even if not purely communist since a communist state is arguably an oxymoron. In these states (and I'm not sure that Kerala could be considered as one of them as it appears to have more of a democratic socialist form not incompatible with capitalism), I'm not aware of any case where the final stage of Marx's communism, the withering away of the state leaving that "free association", has been achieved even partially. I don't find that surprising as it seems very unlikely for something like that to happen in modern, highly complex societies. Another phenomenon is that several societies which adopted that Marxist-Leninist model either following revolution, war or occupation - notably the states of the former Soviet Union and satellites, China and Vietnam - have reintroduced capitalist forms even while retaining a powerful state grip on the direction of policy.

Personally, I don't believe that Marx's model for transition to communism is desirable, or that his model for the final phase of communism is achievable, however important his insights about capitalism.

I think that it would be difficult to argue credibly with any of the above.

[scottycelt]

Generally communists and anarchists are in agreement about the desirability of a society of equals, but disagree about how to achieve it. The idea that what anarchists want is "chaos" is quite silly, but scottycelt probably doesn't know any anarchists or doesn't listen to the ones he does know..

You must always resort to needlessly personalising such discussions, mustn't you ... ?

If we are forced to descend to such a tit-for-tat level may I be so bold as to enquire how much personal experience you have had managing any sort of company and/or working on the shopfloor of one... ?

I don't define what anarchy means. I simply go by the official dictionary definition(s) as follows.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

If you disagree with any of these definitions take it up with the official dictionary compilers, and please don't hold myself or any other non-dictionary-compiling forum members responsible for established definitions quite beyond our control ..

[heliocentric]

Critics say an authoritarian hammer is crushing free speech and what is left of Venezuela's democracy.

Well they would, wouldn't they. The thing is that the mass media in Venezuela is overwhelmingly privately-owned, and overwhelmingly opposed to Chavez, as is the capitalist class who still believe the profits from Venezuelan oil belong to them by right and shouldn't be used to improve the health, education and living standards of the country's poor people. Venezuela is certainly not a communist society - but it's a fact that this "Cuba-style dictatorship" is supported by the majority of the population of that country and opposed mostly by those who can't bear to see its wealth spread around.

[heliocentric]

I'm not aware of any case where the final stage of Marx's communism, the withering away of the state leaving that "free association", has been achieved even partially. I don't find that surprising as it seems very unlikely for something like that to happen in modern, highly complex societies.

No, it isn't very likely at the present juncture - because the "modernity" and "complexity" you speak of are constructed precisely so as to make it less likely: internationalisation of capital while keeping the working class fragmented along national lines (a significant achievement of the EU, at least so far). But things can change very rapidly and I think it's necessary to keep the ideas alive and responsive and developing against the time when they'll be needed. But what do you mean by "democratic socialism"? There's no such thing as "undemocratic socialism", when the latter word is properly applied.

[Resurrection Man]

Well they would, wouldn't they. The thing is that the mass media in Venezuela is overwhelmingly privately-owned, and overwhelmingly opposed to Chavez, as is the capitalist class who still believe the profits from Venezuelan oil belong to them by right and shouldn't be used to improve the health, education and living standards of the country's poor people. Venezuela is certainly not a communist society - but it's a fact that this "Cuba-style dictatorship" is supported by the majority of the population of that country and opposed mostly by those who can't bear to see its wealth spread around.

Congratulations on selectively quoting. How about the forced closure of the RCTV? Not a particularly liberal and open-minded regime then?

You might also like to research the crime statistics for Venezuela since Chavez came to power. Makes interesting reading. Not quite the White Knight....more the Red Mist

[heliocentric]

How about the forced closure of the RCTV?

Personally I would not be in favour of closing down broadcast companies. But the case of RCTV is not entirely simple, as you presumably know: the action taken in not renewing its domestic broadcast licence was made in response to the active propaganda role it is supposed to have played in the coup of 2002 against the democretically-elected government, which is against Venezuelan law, as it would be against UK law if Channel 4 started inciting people to violently overthrow the British government. The decision not to renew RCTV's license was upheld by Venezuela's Supreme Tribunal, a body set up under the 1999 constitution, which (just as a reminder) was drafted by a democratically-elected constitutional assembly and ratified by a national referendum.

[ahinton]

So are you REALLY suggesting that you simply accept the first dictionary definition of anything you come across ?
Bonkers

I wasn't aware that there was an "official dictionary definition" of anything ?
official to whom ?

and if there was an "official" dictionary surely it would be the OED and not dictionary.com

OK, let's first try these for size:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/anarchy

http://www.towson.edu/polsci/irencyc/anarchy.htm (which has the wondrous bonus of a reference to an American political scientist who rejoices/d in the name Kenneth Waltz; whether or not he ever danced a Zap(p)ateado about architecture is as unclear as is whether his definition of "the nature of neorealist international relations as a "self-help" system" is - er Strictly true...
and lastly (at least for now)
http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/...versus-anarchy which seeks to devotes some space to the connective relationships that it perceives between anarchy/ists and socialism/ists.

More than sufficient on with which to be going, as Churchill might have said...

[MrGongGong]

Indeed
but to equate Anarchy with Chaos is a mistake (not that i'm an anarchist anyway )

[eighthobstruction]

Surely it would be better to look up Anarchism rather than Anarchy....

[heliocentric]

Surely it would be better to look up Anarchism rather than Anarchy....

Indeed. But whichever way you look at it, the etymology of the word is ἀν- plus ἀρχός, ie. "without a ruler", so when scottycelt says "a system without bosses equals anarchy" he is completely correct, in a tautological kind of way. Since he asks, he is also completely correct in surmising that I have never been involved in running a company, but not in surmising that I have little or no experience of working on the shopfloor of one. For what it's worth.