Socialism

[Machead III]

Two questions:

1) Why do you guys thing that the big socialist parties of Europe dropped the road to the commune in favour of libertarian social democracy during the late 20th Century? Was the shortlived economic boom it brought worth abandoning the momentum that had been built up against profit-orientated and exploitational capitalism?

2) Why is it almost all Americans consider free market (imperalist) capitalism the sole valid option for economics in the world today, and refuse to even consider any other theories? Is it because they are economically ineducated or they are satisfied with widespread poverty and labour injustice outside of the own country, or outside of the rich areas of their country?

Just interested. I mean, capitalism is like the internal combustion engine; it's bean around too long, it's inefficient and it's ****s up the environment. It's got to go.

[skunk]

Two questions:

1) Why do you guys thing that the big socialist parties of Europe dropped the road to the commune in favour of libertarian social democracy during the late 20th Century? Was the shortlived economic boom it brought worth abandoning the momentum that had been built up against profit-orientated and exploitational capitalism?

2) Why is it almost all Americans consider free market (imperalist) capitalism the sole valid option for economics in the world today, and refuse to even consider any other theories? Is it because they are economically ineducated or they are satisfied with widespread poverty and labour injustice outside of the own country, or outside of the rich areas of their country?

Just interested. I mean, capitalism is like the internal combustion engine; it's bean around too long, it's inefficient and it's ****s up the environment. It's got to go.A few questions for you:
1) Don't you mean "liberal" as opposed to "libertarian"? They are rather different things.
2) What is your alternative?
3) Is the environmental record or efficiency of communist or socialist systems any better? Look at the god-awful mess in eastern Europe, China and Russia.

Presumably they dropped the "road to the commune" because it wasn't actually going anywhere except downhill.

[Thomas Veil]

Well, I'm not smart enough to answer the first question, but I'll take a stab at the second.

The industrial revolution in the United States was undeniably what made it the most powerful country in the world, and a lot of that came from the free market. What free market economists choose not to recognize is that, like any system that is not policed, huge inequities and corruption inevitably follow. It matters not to the free economist that some people are hideously, impossibly wealthy while others lose their homes. "Life is unfair," they will tell you, as if it were beyond the reach of human power to make it fairer.

We saw, of course, that the rise of unions combined with government regulation such as antitrust laws gave rise, in the mid-20th century, to the hugest middle class the United States had ever seen. More people with more money to buy things meant a booming economy...and it was assumed that that would be a self-sustaining process. That, naturally, didn't happen, as greedy capitalists figured out they could make even more money by sending their work overseas...and we've been on an inexorable downward path ever since, with smaller wages chasing fewer jobs (or is it the other way around?).

I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but the fact that the free market (even regulated) made the United States so rich and powerful in the first place gave capitalism the exalted status it holds today. Once rich capitalists figured they could use their money to buy their way around those regulations, the deified position of capitalism was cemented in place.

As to why Americans are "satisfied" with this situation...it's partly lack of education, partly political/economic propaganda that keeps telling us that capitalism is "the only way", and partly the fact that people have been hammer-stunned into thinking that the system is so powerful that they are helpless to change it. Look at companies who fire employees for attempting to unionize. They've got us so scared of losing the jobs we have, unremunerative as they may be, that we're afraid to complain. And we can't vote for federal officeholders who will stand up for us, because, well, they're pretty much all bought.

[Ugg]

Well, I'm not smart enough to answer the first question, but I'll take a stab at the second.

The industrial revolution in the United States was undeniably what made it the most powerful country in the world, and a lot of that came from the free market. What free market economists choose not to recognize is that, like any system that is not policed, huge inequities and corruption inevitably follow. It matters not to the free economist that some people are hideously, impossibly wealthy while others lose their homes. "Life is unfair," they will tell you, as if it were beyond the reach of human power to make it fairer.

We saw, of course, that the rise of unions combined with government regulation such as antitrust laws gave rise, in the mid-20th century, to the hugest middle class the United States ever seen. More people with more money to buy things meant a booming economy...and it was assumed that that would be a self-sustaining process. That, naturally, didn't happen, as greedy capitalists figured out they could make even more money by sending their work overseas...and we've been on an inexorable downward path ever since, with smaller wages chasing fewer jobs (or is it the other way around?).

I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but the fact that the free market (even regulated) made the United States so rich and powerful in the first place gave capitalism the exalted status it holds today. Once rich capitalists figured they could use their money to buy their way around those regulations, the deified position of capitalism was cemented in place.

As to why Americans are "satisfied" with this situation...it's partly lack of education, partly political/economic propaganda that keeps telling us that capitalism is "the only way", and partly the fact that people have been hammer-stunned into thinking that the system is so powerful that they are helpless to change it. Look at companies who fire employees for attempting to unionize. They've got us so scared of losing the jobs we have, unremunerative as they may be, that we're afraid to complain. And we can't vote for federal officeholders who will stand up for us, because, well, they're pretty much all bought.

I agree with all of the above but I would add that in the 50s Socialism was equated with Communism, many Americans still don't understand the distinction.

Europeans have just as much of a chance of socio-economic advancement as Americans but the perception is that in America, at least, socialism doesn't allow it.

[Machead III]

A few questions for you:
1) Don't you mean "liberal" as opposed to "libertarian"? They are rather different things.
2) What is your alternative?
3) Is the environmental record or efficiency of communist or socialist systems any better? Look at the god-awful mess in eastern Europe, China and Russia.

Presumably they dropped the "road to the commune" because it wasn't actually going anywhere except downhill.

1) I'm talking about the philosophies libertarian parties of the 50's in Europe and the US settled for left wing social policies within a moderated capitalist market.

2) My alternative is irrelevent. The fact is that politics is a science, and so improvements can be made as understanding increases, so a more efficient system should have replaced imperalist capitalism by now, providing the public at large was in support of egalitarianism rather than the consolidation of power amongst the few (fascism).

3) Any idiot with even a passing knowlege of Communism and Socialism can tell you that the USSR and China, not to mention Cuba, are anything but (particularly socially).

Skunks misunderstanding in point 3 seem to illustrate the lack of education/understanding of left wing politics in the US that you guys are talking about.

Here in Europe we have our problems with federalism and conservatism, but I think our understanding of left wing, and right wing ideologies for that matter, is a fair bit better because of our history.

Also, we are forced to confrotn the reality of Stalinism and it's complete contrast to socialism given the huge political variation (both at present and historically) in the EU.

Saying that, Americans at large seem much more concerned about politics and the actions of the state than the average European. Over here, you get a lot of people would probably give you very progressive opinions if pressed but would never even think of acting upon them.

Regarding my first point, over here in Europe, a huge majority of nations have left, left leaning or historically elft wing parties, and one of the biggest EU blocs is the http://www.socialistinternational.org/. However, given that the SI contains both the SDP and the British Labour Party, you can see that it's not particularly dedicated to reaching the commune any time soon :/

[mactastic]

You do realize that Skunk is pretty damn close to Europe... don't you? I somehow doubt he's a product of the American brainwashing you seem to have bestowed upon us all.

[Ugg]

What's your point here? You came in asking questions and then when they weren't answered to your satisfaction you start taking potshots. I'd guess you're a student who has just finished some course and are out to prove your knowledge?!

Skunk, by the way as should be obvious from his location, is a brit and probably won't take kindly to your erroneous assumption that he is an American.

[skunk]

No skin off my nose. :)
Some of my best friends are from "over there". They can't help it....

[pseudobrit]

3) Any idiot with even a passing knowlege of Communism and Socialism can tell you that the USSR and China, not to mention Cuba, are anything but (particularly socially).

I'll take issue with the "anything but" sentiment.

They may not be shining examples of pure communism (especially China today), but they did run a functioning communist economy for quite some time.

Besides, any idiot with a passing knowledge of communism knows that it's only an economic system that (so far in history) usually resides within the government of a dictatorship.

[Peterkro]

With some trepidation I'll try and express some of my views.Communisn is a societal system with no state,therefore has never been tried on a large scale.The societies of USSR China et al are best described as state capitalism and indeed were or are dictatorships by the ruling parties.As to Socialism it too has been perverted by its involvement with the idea of the nation state,its the entire nation state idea that has to go before any change in how society is organised can be put into practice.The only place I see socialistic(I don't think that is an english word but Americans seem to use it) ideas put into practice is amongs the top multinationals.This whole thread seems a bit skewed to me,what with immoderate language and all(just practising my USean).:D
Whoops forgot this link to a reasonably accurate Wikipedia article:

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

[Blue Velvet]

Nice to see the universal brotherhood of socialism alive and well.

[Peterkro]

Quick somebody post a Latin saying so we can translate it.:)

[Machead III]

Nice to see the universal brotherhood of socialism alive and well.

Well you see we got a lot of persnickety little e-revolutionaries around these days, so hung up on semantics they don't have any time to read up on any real literature.

Not that it matters, this place stinks of suburbia, and didn't Trotsky say the revolution would come from the developing world? Let's hope so, so long as skunk has his Financial Times and Kenyan coffee I doubt he'd get off his ass anytime soon that's for sure.

(It is entirely possible I decided to start trolling a few posts back)

[bousozoku]

Keep the discussion civil, please.

[Applespider]

Let's hope so, so long as skunk has his Financial Times and Kenyan coffee I doubt he'd get off his ass anytime soon that's for sure.

(It is entirely possible I decided to start trolling a few posts back)

Sorry, this made me laugh. From what I've read of Skunk's posts here for over the past year, the idea of him lounging around with an FT and Kenyan coffee is slightly incongruous. ;)

[skunk]

Faciunt desertam et vocant istam aequationem.
With apologies to Tacitus.

[pseudobrit]

Not that it matters, this place stinks of suburbia

I live in a city.

I suppose you're living the ghettoes of West Africa, then, yes? Little e-revolutionary indeed.

[skunk]

Sorry, this made me laugh. From what I've read of Skunk's posts here for over the past year, the idea of him lounging around with an FT and Kenyan coffee is slightly incongruous. ;)Damned straight! It's the Indy and the coffee comes from Harrogate.
:D

[Sayhey]

Late to the thread, but the original questions are interesting (even if the personal attacks aren't,) and after I get back from my bourgeois exercise of taking my kids to see Jackson's "King Kong" I'll try to give my two cents. Right now let me just say I think that in most socialist societies, and in the view of them from capitalists, there is a confusion between socialism vs. the market, instead of socialism vs. private ownership of the means of production or services. Well regulated markets work to promote certain types of efficiencies (profit accumulation, innovation of products, etc.) However, there is no inherent contradiction between market mechanisms and socialism. As long as socialists think there is, they will never be able to compete with Capitalism in these critical areas. Whether, politically, winning people to the idea of doing away with private ownership of production is possible is a whole other question. More later after Hollywood schlock.

[miloblithe]

This thread gets my 2006 "what the hell?" award.

In answer to the original questions:

1) because politics evolve. No political party or ideoligy maintains the exact same stance for centuries for the simple reason that circumstances change with time.

2) "Almost all" Americans do not consider "free market 'imperialist' Capitalism the sole valid option for economics in the world today". Many have not even given the subject any thought. Many are opposed to it. Many recognize that archaic labling systems don't really recognize present reality.

And since you brought it up, what do you suggest to replace the internal combustion engine?

[mactastic]

The external combustion engine?

(Buh dump CHING)

[Lazyhound]

2) My alternative is irrelevent.
YOU'RE WRONG BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU WHY.

The fact is that politics is a science, and so improvements can be made as understanding increases, so a more efficient system should have replaced imperalist capitalism by now,
What if it is the most efficient system?

providing the public at large was in support of egalitarianism rather than the consolidation of power amongst the few (fascism).
First define "egalitarianism".

3) Any idiot with even a passing knowlege of Communism and Socialism can tell you that the USSR and China, not to mention Cuba, are anything but (particularly socially).
Anyone who has taken an intro-level psychology class can tell you why Communism will never, ever work.

Also, we are forced to confrotn the reality of Stalinism and it's complete contrast to socialism given the huge political variation (both at present and historically) in the EU.
Socialism:Stalinism::velvet glove:iron fist.

Saying that, Americans at large seem much more concerned about politics and the actions of the state than the average European. Over here, you get a lot of people would probably give you very progressive opinions if pressed but would never even think of acting upon them.
Ahahahahahahaha people still use that non-ironically?

[solvs]

Anyone who has taken an intro-level psychology class can tell you why Communism will never, ever work.
Yeah, it's a nice idea on paper, but never works in the real world. Is it me, or does it always seem to turn into some sort of totalitarian militocracy? (what, that's a word... kinda)

Democratic capitalism is the worst possible system of government... except for all the other types of government.

[Sayhey]

First, let's define our terms. Socialism is defined by Marx as the first stage of post-capitalist society in which the means of production, including in a modern economy the service sector, is owned socially. Whether that means ownership by the workers in a given enterprise, industry, or by the state, is not clearly forecast as part of the blueprint. It would also be governed by the principle ,"from each according to their abilities, to each according to their work." Communism, is the stage after that when there has developed a "new man" who would be governed by the principle of "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." This latter utopian vision is not one that any Socialist or Communist politician would claim to have existed on this earth. In my humble opinion, it is a relic of 19th century utopian visions and is hardly worth the trouble to debate. Socialism is another question all together.

As I stated in my first post, Socialism, is not inherently in opposition to market mechanisms used in capitalist societies. However, in the attempts to build Socialism in countries that lacked the basic modern capitalist infrastructures (i.e. Tsarist Russia, China, Cuba, etc.) this lack of development has meant a reliance on command economies that try to ignore the power of markets. While effective in the build up of infrastructure, these economies found themselves attempting to control every decision and consequence of almost ever sector of their economy. As they grew this became impossible and horribly inefficient. The fact these attempts were combined with political methods and structures that attempted to monopolize power in the hands of one party, or one new elite, only doomed whatever small chance they had to failure.

All of which brings us back to the first of Machead's questions. "Why ... the big socialist parties of Europe dropped the road to the commune..." is the heart of the question and it can only be viewed in the rather spectacular collapse of the "Socialist World" in Europe in the late 1980s and 90s. For better, or in this case worse, the idea of Socialism was associated in the minds of almost everyone with the old Soviet Union and, to a lesser degree, the other Warsaw Pact nations. Ideas that have shown their bankruptcy are hard to revise and win new adherents. This effected not only the old Communist Parties, but also any who advocated Socialism, no matter if they had a different vision of what that meant or how it was achieved. This led to many Socialist Parties becoming little more than advocates of a Capitalism with a more "humane face." The British Labour Party is the best example of this trend.

More later.

[Peterkro]

Sahey I agree with a lot you say and you do have a grasp of what communism and socialism are.I would disagree that communism is Utopian there have existed for short periods post social revolution societies the most well known is Catalonia during the Civil war.My view is the State Capitalist system in the USSR collapsed because of its own internal contradictions,the odd thing is its probably sown the seeds of the collapse of Capitalism in general.Lets remember the recent period of full blooded capitalism has only been here a very short time,in history merely a blink things will change again quite soon.

[Lazyhound]

the odd thing is its probably sown the seeds of the collapse of Capitalism in general.
How so?

things will change again quite soon.
In which way?

[skunk]

How so?
In which way?Hubris. Keep watching.

[tristan]

Somebody's got to say it I guess - communism is tyranny. If you don't have the right to sell your labor to whomever you want and keep the fruits of it, you're basically a slave.

I have the freedom to walk out of my office right now and never come back. Maybe I won't find another job and I'll starve. Or maybe I'll start my own business and make millions and create jobs for other people. Or maybe I'll take a pay cut to work closer to home or in a less stressful environment. It's all up to me and my future employer or customers, and that's the way it should be.

And if you don't give people like me that freedom to shop our labor around, your society will fall apart because people will vote with their feet and move somewhere that they do have their freedom - maybe another country, or maybe the black market. Did you know that most of the high-tax states in the US have a net population outflow, while the lower-tax states have an inflow? Motivated people don't wait for politics to fix things- they just get up and walk out the door and go somewhere where they can benefit from their hard work. That's basically the spirit that built America.

[miloblithe]

Did you know that most of the high-tax states in the US have a net population outflow, while the lower-tax states have an inflow?

link?

[tristan]

link?

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7125
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=28297
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_nypost-nys_fleeing_taxpayers.htm

[MarkCollette]

1) Why do you guys thing that the big socialist parties of Europe dropped the road to the commune in favour of libertarian social democracy during the late 20th Century? Was the shortlived economic boom it brought worth abandoning the momentum that had been built up against profit-orientated and exploitational capitalism?

A commune only makes sense in an agrarian society. Urbanisation of industrialised nations made it obsolete.

You terminology is loaded. You say the "shortlived economic boom" and "abandoning the momentum". I disagree on both assertions, so your question is meaningless to me.


2) Why is it almost all Americans consider free market (imperalist) capitalism the sole valid option for economics in the world today, and refuse to even consider any other theories? Is it because they are economically ineducated or they are satisfied with widespread poverty and labour injustice outside of the own country, or outside of the rich areas of their country?

Equating free markets with imperialist capitalism shows a lack of comprehension of the terminology, and their historical context. Free markets reduce governmental control. True, that without regulation, that control tends to concentrate in the hands of the wealthy. But, imperialism is only possible with governmental assistance.

In the American historical context, it is true that large corporate interests have had the support of government military power in exercising control over neighbouring countries, such as those in South and Central America. But, that can only be perceived as a movement away from free markets. Take for example Guatemala and banana production. That was clearly a case of imperialism, but while the American population continued access to bananas, that does not mean it was a free market move. It is completely against free markets to take a resource through the application of force.

But back to whatever you were trying to say. Why is it that Americans view that as the sole valid option? Well, because it has benefitted them. If you've read any Marx then you would know that people take their materialist position and attempt to generalise that to make a rule. In this case, several hundred years of imperialism, ala Monroe Doctrine, have benefitted all Americans. As for the internal injustice, cultural and economic sabotage of the poor classes have kept them all in line.


Just interested. I mean, capitalism is like the internal combustion engine; it's bean around too long, it's inefficient and it's ****s up the environment. It's got to go.

Capitalism is the process of reducing all transactions, decisions, and measurements into the realm of capital. So when a factory pollutes, anti-capitalists say "see, it pays to pollute, so capitalism has failed us". The obvious answer (to me) is to attach a capital value to the environment, and so bring that into the cost equation. Usually this is done via regulation. The problem was not that capitalism is flawed, it's that we failed to bring things, like the environment, fully into the fold of capitalism.

The real issue is that free markets work best without subsidies. At least, in the long term. In the short term we might need some, so that certain people don't starve and die. But all subsidies should be viewed as short term instruments, to be removed as soon as possible, or allowed only as necessary. The environment is a shared resource, and so when someone pollutes into it, they are costing all of us. If we allow them to do that for free, we are subsidising them. In a free market, no one should be forced to subsidise another, otherwise that market is less free. In this way, a free market would not allow wanton pollution.

To summarise, it is counter to free markets to allow pollution. And pollution is not because of capitalism, but due to a lack of capitalism.

[miloblithe]

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7125
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=28297
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_nypost-nys_fleeing_taxpayers.htm

OK, but there are stronger correlations than tax rates, such as average temperature and proximity to Mexico. Look at low tax South and North Dakota, for example.

[belvdr]

Come on, you've all missed it. Capitalism is the only way to go. I mean, look at the US economy. Oh wait, don't...

[tristan]

OK, but there are stronger correlations than tax rates, such as average temperature and proximity to Mexico. Look at low tax South and North Dakota, for example.

FL, TX, NV have the highest net migration while NY, CA, rest of new england have net outflows. Taxes don't explain all migration of course, but there's definitely a trend. Warm weather and cost of living play a factor too, of course.

[superbovine]

And since you brought it up, what do you suggest to replace the internal combustion engine?

The solution to replace a traditional internal combustion engine i.e. diesel, gasoline, and natural gas in cars right now would be a hybird cars. However hybirds still an Internal Combustion Engine, ICE. Even when hydrogen powered cars come running on hydrogen fuel cells come out they will still be ICEs, just that will be cleaner. All the tree hugging people will love that. The other option is electric cars, but no one wants to plug in a car all the time much less be in a car accident in a big giant capacitor with enough juice to deep fry you. (I believe hybird cars a 50 KW)

[Peterkro]

The solution to replace a traditional internal combustion engine i.e. diesel, gasoline, and natural gas in cars right now would be a hybird cars. However hybirds still an Internal Combustion Engine, ICE. Even when hydrogen powered cars come running on hydrogen fuel cells come out they will still be ICEs, just that will be cleaner. All the tree hugging people will love that. The other option is electric cars, but no one wants to plug in a car all the time much less be in a car accident in a big giant capacitor with enough juice to deep fry you. (I believe hybird cars a 50 KW)
I think some treehuggers may point out the energy expenditure for getting hydrogen fuel cells working will result a lower efficentcy than traditional ICE's.

[tristan]

Come on, you've all missed it. Capitalism is the only way to go. I mean, look at the US economy. Oh wait, don't...

You've unwittingly hit the nail on the head. Capitalism works very well in some countries, like the US and Europe, and is a miserable failure in others, like all the banana republics. Why? Corruption. Corruption is capitalism's evil twin, because high concentrations of wealth lead to conditions that promote corruption. If government doesn't beat back corruption on a regular basis, it ruins capitalism because the wealthy can tilt the legal playing field in their favor and eliminate fair competition which distorts market forces. Think subsidies to oil companies.

FYI This is my biggest issue with the Republicans - they say they're pro-capitalist, but they're actually pro-corruption, which is anti-capitalist. They want to create a world where who you know is more important than what you know.

[superbovine]

I think some treehuggers may point out the energy expenditure for getting hydrogen fuel cells working will result a lower efficentcy than traditional ICE's.

do you the energy expenditure to creating enough hydrogen to put in the fuel cell or the energy as in the amount of research it would take to create a hydrogen fuel cell?

If you mean the creation of hydrogen you have a point, but that is an engineering problem that can probably be solved.

[Peterkro]

do you the energy expenditure to creating enough hydrogen to put in the fuel cell or the energy as in the amount of research it would take to create a hydrogen fuel cell?

If you mean the creation of hydrogen you have a point, but that is an engineering probably that can probably be solved.
The later although the former counts too.Can't see it happening anytime soon,that is not in time to replace oil.

[belvdr]

You've unwittingly hit the nail on the head. Capitalism works very well in some countries, like the US and Europe, and is a miserable failure in others, like all the banana republics. Why? Corruption. Corruption is capitalism's evil twin, because high concentrations of wealth lead to conditions that promote corruption. If government doesn't beat back corruption on a regular basis, it ruins capitalism because the wealthy can tilt the legal playing field in their favor and eliminate fair competition which distorts market forces. Think subsidies to oil companies.

FYI This is my biggest issue with the Republicans - they say they're pro-capitalist, but they're actually pro-corruption, which is anti-capitalist. They want to create a world where who you know is more important than what you know.

Hey, did you just call me ignorant about my own statement? ;)

Also think about the steel industry, or the sugar industry. There's so many industries where the government has gotten involved and I think it is about time they stopped.

[superbovine]

The later although the former counts too.Can't see it happening anytime soon,that is not in time to replace oil.

Well if you against spending money and time for scientific research, how do you expect the world to advance, and improve itself? If you premise is true then we shouldn't even bother researching how to cure AIDS because it will take to much time and effort because the cure won't come out for years.

[Blackheart]

I don't know, I always thought #4 out of 192 was pretty good...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

Seems like the U.S. is doing something right.

[MarkCollette]

You've unwittingly hit the nail on the head. Capitalism works very well in some countries, like the US and Europe, and is a miserable failure in others, like all the banana republics. Why? Corruption. Corruption is capitalism's evil twin, because high concentrations of wealth lead to conditions that promote corruption. If government doesn't beat back corruption on a regular basis, it ruins capitalism because the wealthy can tilt the legal playing field in their favor and eliminate fair competition which distorts market forces. Think subsidies to oil companies.

FYI This is my biggest issue with the Republicans - they say they're pro-capitalist, but they're actually pro-corruption, which is anti-capitalist. They want to create a world where who you know is more important than what you know.

Corruption is an issue that every system must deal with, not just capitalism.

Plus, you really have to differentiate between political and economic systems.

Capitalism only moves the corruption into the realm of finance. Other systems would simply use land, title, or forms of nepotism for their corruption.

Well regulated free markets tend to combat corruption, since they disperse power, and give choice. That way, when corruption is recognised, one can choose not to economically support the corrupt.

A democratic system is probably the most resilient political system to corruption, but the devil's in the details of the implementation. Certain things support corruption, like gerrymandering, one party systems, two party systems, lack of oversight, lobbying, large campaign donations, etc.

And, to be fair, I think you should blame Neocon Republicans, not all Republicans, for the current blatant corruption in the USA. Of course, all the main parties are corrupt, but I'm refering to the blatant corruption.

[MarkCollette]

You've unwittingly hit the nail on the head. Capitalism works very well in some countries, like the US and Europe, and is a miserable failure in others, like all the banana republics. Why? Corruption.

Oops, I missed a point I wanted to make. Many of the current banana republics are in such a crappy state because of the imperialist sponsored coups, decades ago. It takes a long time to grow a stable system (note how I said grow, not build). But it takes a very short time to destroy it. If you look at all the democratic governments that were overthrown by military force, and then look at all the educated elite who fled, or were killed, then it makes sense that those systems fell into such disrepair. And when you put thugs and criminals in charge of a nation, of course corruption grows.

This isn't just the case with Latin America and the USA, it explains most of the Middle East, South East Asia, and Africa. Most of the world's poor are in that situation because of imperialism, and proxy cold war conflicts.

[mactastic]

FL, TX, NV have the highest net migration while NY, CA, rest of new england have net outflows. Taxes don't explain all migration of course, but there's definitely a trend. Warm weather and cost of living play a factor too, of course.
If CA has a net outflow, how come we're having to build so many new houses here? :confused:

[takao]

my personal opinion is that the best way is still in the middle of the road

after all even the US stops promoting "free markets" as soon as the topic hits farmers ;)

[Don't panic]

FL, TX, NV have the highest net migration while NY, CA, rest of new england have net outflows. Taxes don't explain all migration of course, but there's definitely a trend. Warm weather and cost of living play a factor too, of course.

in general you need more than a correlation to prove a point,

although in other instances they do make a bulletproof case:

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

(and being in bethesda, you should know better) ;)

[Sayhey]

Sahey I agree with a lot you say and you do have a grasp of what communism and socialism are. I would disagree that communism is Utopian there have existed for short periods post social revolution societies the most well known is Catalonia during the Civil war. My view is the State Capitalist system in the USSR collapsed because of its own internal contradictions,the odd thing is its probably sown the seeds of the collapse of Capitalism in general. Lets remember the recent period of full blooded capitalism has only been here a very short time,in history merely a blink things will change again quite soon.

What little I've tried to deal with was in attempting to give my "two cents" to answering why Socialists, and in some cases Communist parties, have moved away from "the Commune." By which I take Machead to mean, not literally the Paris Commune or any other particular attempt at a utopian society (including Catalonia,) but rather why they have abandoned a vision of socialism as their political goal.

What I have tried to say is that the collapse of the "command economy" style societies was both inevitable because they are incapable of competing with Capitalism, and that collapse had a profound impact on the view of Socialism and its viability as an alternative to Capitalism. I'm not trying to deal with the moral superiority of either system; only that in order for one to supplant the other it must work better (i.e. be more efficient.)

What I've also tried to imply is that for Socialism to have any chance in the future, its advocates must show how it will build on Capitalism's methods that work and improve on those that don't. By that I mean, it is not enough to talk about the undeniable inequalities inherent in Capitalism. Those who would take society down another path must show it will work better than what exists now. On a personal note, as a much younger man, I took it as a truism that Socialism not only can work, but would do so better than Capitalism. I no longer assume that is true. I can only say, that to me, that it is an open question, and, for it to have any chance of being answered in the affirmative, it is dependent on a vision of socialism wedded to both a Socialist market economy and to a real organic link to the expansion of democracy.

To Machead's questions, I think most socialist and communist parties have not yet adequately dealt with these questions and find themselves dealing with the very much needed work of trying to defend working class folks from the inequalities of Capitalism. Some of that is understandable and maybe inevitable. What drives me crazy is when they not only have no vision of Socialism (I think I've made it clear that such a vision might be a mirage,) but instead look to make Capitalism more efficient at the expense of working people. When they do so, as I think Blair and Schröder have done, they no longer have the right to the claim of even "progressive" leadership. They have become a new liberal capitalist party.

One last note. I've heard of Capitalism's imminent demise through its general crises since almost my first introduction to left politics, and I've long since abandoned this as true. Capitalism has shown over the last 80 plus years since Lenin predicted it was on the verge of falling apart that it is highly adaptable and highly resilient. Just continuing to predict it is going to collapse doesn't make it so, and it raises unfavorable questions about the insights of those who do so.

more later.

[tristan]

To me, free market capitalims means no rules - dog eat dog. But we're really far away from that. In every developed country, government sets the rules and business plays by them. And if business doesn't like it, the government can shut them down or even put people in jail. (Bernie Ebbers.)

So if government is more powerful than business, then I would say we're a republic first and capitalist a distant second. And our republic has plenty of socialist tendencies - medicare, social security, etc. So I think people who say the US is a capitalist country are more incorrect than correct. It's a somewhat capitalist somewhat socialist republic.

One big problem that we have in the US is that the government doesn't take its responsibilities as a market regulator seriously anymore, and any industry or special interest with a lobbyist can push through whatever rules they want.

[MarkCollette]

To me, free market capitalims means no rules - dog eat dog. But we're really far away from that.

Well, a pure free market, but everything comes in degrees.


One big problem that we have in the US is that the government doesn't take its responsibilities as a market regulator seriously anymore, and any industry or special interest with a lobbyist can push through whatever rules they want.

In a free market sytem, it's the government's primary responsibility to regulate the market, such as ensuring no monopolistic leveraging. Well, there's also providing internal and external security too...

Anyways, the point is that it's really sad when our governments fail to do their job of market regulation, when that should be its first priority.