Monkeybot

I fail to see the connection between a declining population and the market economy. (I'm not saying the connection flat-out doesn't exist, just that you're going to have to connect the dots a little more clearly.) What factors, exactly, have gone into the decline of the population? Immigration? Declining birth rates? The AIDS explosion? All of these could account for the decline without necessarily being related to the market economy.

moon

Communism would mean an end to states, so obviously communism has not been implemented. The first stage of communism, i.e. socialism, has been embarked upon, but it never was able to flourish.

The main reason why states that have gone down the socialist path have met their demise is the fact that they were under constant attack by the surrounding capitalist powers. Lenin, Trotsky, et.al., expected that the USSR would not survive unless there were other proletarian revolutions in Europe. Surrounded by hostile forces, they were forced to retreat into themselves, and there grew up a bureaucratic regime that embodied the very opposite of Bolshevik ideals. Indeed, they literally liquidated the old Bolsheviks, putting an ice pick in the head of the most famous, Trotsky.

Capitalism has succeeded so far because of the concentration of power and resources in the hands of the capitalists. They are very good at adapting to new situations, maintaining and expandiing their power. This situation, however, cannot last. Capitalism has reached a stage in history where it has become counter-productive. We are witnessing the last gasps of capitalism, as it seeks desperately to exploit newly created markets and to super-exploit the Third World. It is highly unstable, and is bound to collapse. The only question is whether the collapse will result in socialism or annihilation.

Rosa Luxemburg once said that we face the dilemma of either socialism or barbarism. In today's world, it is much worse than that. The imperialists will not hesitate to launch a nuclear war if they can get away with it and it helps to maintain their position. The question is whether socialism will come before the inevitable nuclear holocaust.

hal9000

I'll grant you that communes can work on a small scale, with dedicated followers who are able to pull together for the common good. However ther are based on the belief in God and religion and the concept of a peple, Jews, working together. But communism has never happened on a large scale over time, has it? It apears that Russia and China show that communism is but a stage of developement into capitalism. Why is that? Or if that isn't the case, then why has every communist nation failed?

hal9000

So moon, it would seem that your argument is that communism failed because capitalism was a stronger more robust system, and kicked the crap out of communism? Interesting. But the left says that communism is the superior system, yet it never has prevailed on the world stage. I would say that that proves that capitalism is in fact the stronger more superior system. Kind of like survival of the fittest as it were.

moon

Uh, no, that is not at all what I am saying. In fact, the USSR showed that a centrally planned economy is much more stable and productive than the market based economies. The USSR collapsed because the bureaucracy simply handed over the USSR to the capitalists. They chose to restore capitalism instead of institute democracy, as this was the only way they could maintain their position of privilege.

The problem with the USSR was its backwardness and isolation in capitalist encirclement.

More to the point, the mere survival of a social system does not mean it is more "fit." In fact, the imperialist powers have gone to extreme lengths to snuff out socialism wherever it has reared its head. Why do you think they had to destroy Vietnam, for example? Or Grenada? Or Nicaragua? Why do you think the U.S. has been attacking Cuba for 44 years? If capitalism was really superior, there would be no need to crush socialism around the world. Yet, the ruling class understands that if people had a choice, they will chose socialism overwhelmingly every time. Therefore, highly repressive measures have to be undertaken to nip socialist tendencies in the bud.

echidna

The left will continually cite Russia�s struggle as proof of capitalism�s ultimate failure. This is wrong on so many counts.

1) No system is flawless. To the extent that no pure capitalistic system exists just as no pure socialist system has existed, capitalism can be badly implemented with bad results.

2) Russia�s transition from communism to capitalism was always going to be rough. It requires not only upheaval to the economic system. Just as moon claims that socialism requires democracy (an assertion which cannot be backed up with any working examples of course), capitalism requires Rule-of-Law and political stability. With the collapse of the State, now neither exist in Russia. Barriers to free enterprise are simply too high to be workable.

3) Why not cite China ? Proof that capitalism can succeed with or without democracy. China�s transition away from communism will be more careful, and ultimately more successful. Very strong long term growth rates, widespread improvements in all social indicators, and all directly attributable to the decline of the socialist economic system. Primarily because China retains political stability & State rule-of-law, far more important when transitioning such a massive economy.

Communism - countless failed attempts, millions of lives, successful nations : zero
Capitalism � some failures, all prosperous nations capitalistic

While proletariat communist uprisings are not uncommon, neither are the proletariat cries for free enterprise after they�ve tasted socialism. Which one on average has better success ? Crikey (scratches head).

echidna

Don't worry Hal, everybody knows national communism is a failure. Interestingly on a smaller scale there are some working examples. Organisational theory and common sense show limitations on just how well humans will operate communally as the size increases and the structure varies.

Friar Bellows

I should note that there are a number of secular kibbutzim in Israel.

moon

Rough? ROUGH!? Contrary to what every single capitalist claimed, i.e. that Russia would have some "growing pains" and then experience opulence as the market worked its miracles, we have seen the most catastrophic economic collapse in history, with severe declines in every area of health, and no sign that things are going to change. This is not just "rough," it is a total failure, in every respect.
Care to back that up?

Capitalism has had success, though, no doubt about it. Most of the world is now capitalist. The fact that most of the world lives in soul-crushing misery never seems to phase the apologists for capitalism like echidna.

echidna

Moon, you yourself have conceded that each of the socialist systems cited are associated with lack of democracy (the prime reason for their failure, right ?)

The west�s resistance to socialism is primarily because Marxism & socialism are just so closely linked with authoritarian dictatorship (would you like a list ?). Further, dictatorships which are openly politically expansionist and aggressive. Really the economic system itself is of little consequence. Does America go to war today when there is a socialist revolution in Africa ? No, because the expansionist threat as fuelled by the Soviet Union is no longer present. Fear of the economic system itself is a laughable suggestion.