[anarchism101]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
A Marxist communist society is basically just anarchy where by some miracle we produce stuff and then distribute it around without any government or market mechanism. Complete clap trap.

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

Socialism on the other hand can basically be defined as worker control of the factors of production.

Fix'd

[snozzle]

These three 'systems' are incommensurable but not equivalents since Capitalism just relates to economics but communism is a 'total system' which lays claim to the social, private, as well as economic life of men. Indeed Marxists would deny that human life can be split into these categories...there is only 'whole man' not the 'half man' of Capitalism who is alienated from himself.

[Kallisto]

(Original post by prog2djent)
(...)
4. Define consume?
(...)

Purchasing power? All kinds of goods/services which households use is a characteristic for consume. It depends on situations how strong purchasing power is. Here in Germany purchasing power was sunken concerning inflation. That is a normal phase in my opinion. There was not phases in which prices was not increase by inflation. Another reason is that real wages was sunken by normal and low earner. The reason for regression of them is temporary work and marginal work which are increased...

[Mishmashmoo]

Capitalism is the only way to make a viable working economy that works in context of the global economy. If you want to end up in a recession then socialism is the way to go

[idontthinkso]

East vs West Russia; South vs North Korea. Ring any bells?

More?
Not even the most ruthless "communist" dictators could implement communism to its full extent. That's how delusional it is. The Soviet Union only started to grow when Lenine allowed private property.

[Bill_Gates]

(Original post by Mishmashmoo)
Capitalism is the only way to make a viable working economy that works in context of the global economy. If you want to end up in a recession then socialism is the way to go

Capitalism is not the only way. Recession? Just another made up word merely means we have less production year on year. But maybe we have too much production which is worthless and not improving our wellbeing if anything destroying it? From overproduction or inadequate production or even planned obsolescence.

Capitalism is great because it gives people the best incentive.

[Oswy]

(Original post by pinda.college)
What confuses me is in a communist society, would wages be standardised? Would people only be given enough money to get by? Also how socialism different?

From a Marxist perspective, communism is the form of radically egalitarian society socialism would travel towards. It follows that arguments which present socialism and communism as alternatives or oppositions are, for Marxists, red-herrings. It's also worth pointing out that Marx envisaged communism as the most universally satisfactory and stable 'end-point' of human civilisation which socialism would lead to and in which there would no longer be any state. The references you'll find in this thread, and elsewhere, to 'communism' being a state-based enterprises are generally taken from observations of soviet, or soviet inspired, 'socialism' which was strongly state orientated and which tended to identify itself, wrongly, as 'communist', at least in the Marxist sense.

[robin22391]

(Original post by pr0view)
I wouldn't even say communism is good on paper as it will NEVER work. However i will admit it was a nice idea if i had to say something as it was meant to help the poor, but it never has or will do that.

When i first became interested in politics the first ideology that interested me was communism, however over time it became obvious it was a ridiculous concept and most communists will not accept any logic when you try to disprove them.

From what i understand of Socialism is that it does require state ownership of industries (e.g. that is why Labour nationalised many industries following the second world war) and the removal of the middle class but the state never gets rid of currency. I think socialism is primarily a economic system where as communism is also political as well such as been very authoritarian. Some aspects of Britain are socialist such as the NHS and education as they are industries that are state owned and accessible for everyone.

it can be said that old communism like under lenin, was not at all communism in the marxist sense, but that russia was holding on until communism happened in germany from where it would spread worldwide. it is extremely difficult to form a communist country without world support, the capitalists would drag you down...we can only imagine how the quality of life in north korea would improve if it was not deemed the enemy of the united states and so embargoed.

however do note that russia became a huge superpower against all the odds under its form of government, despite being badly run and facing huge problems permenantly, it modernised at an unbelievable pace for its time.

[Aeonstorm]

(Original post by robin22391)
however do note that russia became a huge superpower against all the odds under its form of government, despite being badly run and facing huge problems permenantly, it modernised at an unbelievable pace for its time.

Like China, I think the USSR's success came from the fact that absolute state control is very useful for catching up. When you need to industrialise rapidly without the red-tape of a democracy and without caring about how much short-term pain is inflicted, Soviet/chinese style communism is highly effective. What it fails at is prolonged growth and innovation. In the short-term, state control can funnel resources more quickly than the market, but in the long-term, the market dominates in achieving efficiency (except in the case of merit/public goods, which is why a mixed-market economy is better than a free-market economy).

[The Socktor]

(Original post by pinda.college)
What confuses me is in a communist society, would wages be standardised? Would people only be given enough money to get by? Also how socialism different?

I think this video explains it better than I could:

[Aeonstorm]

(Original post by The Socktor)
I think this video explains it better than I could:

Well that video sure makes it sound nice, but an actual model would be nice. While the criticisms of capitalism made in the video are valid, there doesn't seem to be a viable alternative to accumulating capital - from what I was able to gather, socialism would either require the removal of money and the valuation of things based on perhaps a labor theory of value, or a redefinition of money such the value it assigns is not based on demand and supply. Yet is demand and supply not the best indication of what people actually want?

The video suggests that the accumulation of capital is divorced from the accumulation of real wealth, but money buys real goods and services. Money is a simply a valuation utility, and I don't see how not focusing on accumulating money is the solution - that is analogous with not focusing on improving material standard of living, which equates to a lack of incentive and is what crippled the USSR.

[snozzle]

(Original post by Oswy)
From a Marxist perspective, communism is the form of radically egalitarian society socialism would travel towards. It follows that arguments which present socialism and communism as alternatives or oppositions are, for Marxists, red-herrings. It's also worth pointing out that Marx envisaged communism as the most universally satisfactory and stable 'end-point' of human civilisation which socialism would lead to and in which there would no longer be any state. The references you'll find in this thread, and elsewhere, to 'communism' being a state-based enterprises are generally taken from observations of soviet, or soviet inspired, 'socialism' which was strongly state orientated and which tended to identify itself, wrongly, as 'communist', at least in the Marxist sense.

Arguing over definitions is utterly pointless.

All that matters from a rationalist pov is what sort of society does a Socialist (or post-Capitalist) society move toward or tend to move towards (strong vs weak historicism). The name is 100% irrelevant as it is just nominal...whether you choose to call it communism or not is 100% irrelevant. All that matters is the form of that society, not its name.

We could deny historicism completely of course if we have reason to believe that there are no historical laws of social development, that would be Marxism chucked in the bin though.

[Spaz Man]

It all depends on the four factors of production:

(Capital, Labour, Land and Enterprise) and which system makes the most effecient use of those factors.

[snozzle]

(Original post by robin22391)
it is extremely difficult to form a communist country without world support

You might as say it is difficult to form a communist country without aliens landing, both theories fit the facts and are as falsifiable..i.e unfalsifiable.

[robin22391]

(Original post by snozzle)
You might as say it is difficult to form a communist country without aliens landing, both theories fit the facts and are as falsifiable..i.e unfalsifiable.

why bother writing that, why bother with history.

[CUFCDan]

Can I suggest a few things. Most people have already got things covered. However:

1. Marx - Marxism, and Communists* - were and are against the State as much as economic liberals. The state, for Communists, is a tool of oppression and the outcome of class differences. The state is a form of warfare, used to enact laws to cement the position of the bourgeoisie:

“The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it 'the reality of the ethical idea', 'the image and reality of reason', as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of 'order'; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state." Frederick Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.

Lenin in State and Revolution suggests then that the proof is in the state; the state would not exist without class antagonisms.

Here, I think, things get confused. We now enter the realms of the dictatorship of the Proletariat, which in my opinion is far more of a Leninist than a Marxist proposal. And I also think there is a massive void between the revolutionary zeal of the working class, the dictatorship of the Proletariat and the lack of state. Evidently all attempts at Communism has developed a grossly bloated and oppressive state. Which draws me into the next point:

2. Communism is supposed to be highly democratic. It was never designed to be undemocratic. There are many reasons why it failed. In my opinion, the Soviet model, i.e the use of Soviets, is far superior to the Parliamentary model. Instead of voting every 5 years and a token referendum if we're lucky, the democracy is deeper and more fluid, the Soviets being a true reflection of people. In 1917 Russia, this was easier to enact: factories contained many thousands. Now with a more fragmented working class it is difficult, but in my Utopia they would work like councils. The difference would have to lie in education and people wanting to be involved. If people really thought it mattered, maybe they would.

3. Of course the weight of history is against the idea of Communism. It has failed everywhere whilst Capitalism has flourished. Nevertheless I think this is a terrible reason to disregard the debate and research into Communism. We must look at why it failed, rather than simply saying 'because it's bad'. I also think it's a terrible argument because we equate Communism with Marxism; Marx suggested we need a fully developed and educated working class with a class conciousness. Everywhere it has been tried, this has not been the case. Additionally, Marx never gave a time limit. It was, and not without reason, assumed it would have been sooner than now that the revolution would happen. For better or worse, this has failed.

4. Finally I would like to say we need to have a deeper look at Communism here. It's been very simple. Like all ideologies it has been influenced by people over time and encompasses many different aspects. At the heart of the failure of Communism in my opinion is Marx's crap economics and Lenin's democratic centralism principle.

Anyway, to the poster who suggested that Capitalism is free trade, I think you're wrong. Free trade can be possible without capitalism. I can give my friend freely a doughnut for a carrot; this, to me, is not capitalism. If I then sold the carrot for a profit, then we have capitalism; the acquisition of capital.

My politics is difficult to define. I believe in classes, I believe that capitalism is a form of warfare, I believe that state socialism is one of the greatest scourges of earth. I'm probably closest to anarchism in Utopia.

*Communists in this sense is one who appeals to the ideology of Communism at its rawest sense. It is hard to peer through the bracken of the mess of the last 95 years since 1917 and see it for what it was supposed to be.

[CUFCDan]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)

What you are rambling on about is not only complete garbage, but is also a result rather than a framework.

Socialism on the other hand can basically be defined as government control of the factors of production.

Irony.

[snozzle]

(Original post by robin22391)
why bother writing that, why bother with history.

It's faulty (inductive) logic. One cannot just record the historical occurrence of a particular and use that to justify a universal statement.

Or restated, two particular statements as premisses cannot lead to a universal conclusion.

You could posit what you are saying as a hypothesis but it would required testing...which might be impossible.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Oswy)
From a Marxist perspective, communism is the form of radically egalitarian society socialism would travel towards. It follows that arguments which present socialism and communism as alternatives or oppositions are, for Marxists, red-herrings. It's also worth pointing out that Marx envisaged communism as the most universally satisfactory and stable 'end-point' of human civilisation which socialism would lead to and in which there would no longer be any state. The references you'll find in this thread, and elsewhere, to 'communism' being a state-based enterprises are generally taken from observations of soviet, or soviet inspired, 'socialism' which was strongly state orientated and which tended to identify itself, wrongly, as 'communist', at least in the Marxist sense.

Unfortunately, Marx, as almost all Jewish revolutionaries have done, was preaching class war and proletariat revenge against the forces of Capitalism when he envisaged that Socialism could 'lead to' communism. The eradication of the state would simply 'lead to' the implimentation of an oppressive and cruel Communist elite more oppresive than a Capitalist one, the likes of which could give rise to fascism if a reaction ensues... which it inevitably would since, with Communism being undemocratic, forces people to adhere to rigid doctrine that would make the Deuteronomic law code seem like a walk in the park.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by snozzle)
Arguing over definitions is utterly pointless.

All that matters from a rationalist pov is what sort of society does a Socialist (or post-Capitalist) society move toward or tend to move towards (strong vs weak historicism). The name is 100% irrelevant as it is just nominal...whether you choose to call it communism or not is 100% irrelevant. All that matters is the form of that society, not its name.

And if by 'the form of that society' you mean the Stalinist/Eastern Bloc/etc system then this is a kind of pointless thread because afaik no-one on the 'Socialism' side of this thread is arguing for that.