Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    India also has a command economy, more of one than the PRC.
    Really? Do you have a source? (Genuineley interested)

    Are you trying to compare command economy and market economy, or communism and liberal democracy (wait, I thought communism wasn't meant to be a synonym for dictatorship? or just only when inconvenient?).
    That one, as i made clear. China is paradoxically one of the least communist countries in the world as they prevent the organisation of labour!

    A fairer comparison would be Hong Kong: exactly the same people, different economic policies.
    Except its not simple as i showed to that other poster. Additionally They are npot comparible with china as for one Hong Kong was a British colony for just under 200 years IIRC.


    [/quote]
    This is possibly the only question in social science where we can really say multiple controlled experiments have been performed and all return same result.[/QUOTE]

    i'm not sure what question you're asking.

    I think the point i was making is that command economies like china (Though undesirable for many reasons, notably ethical) do produce greater economic out put, have greater stability and have the benefit of being able to make more long term decisions.

    I'm quite happy to be proved wrong!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by darkvibes)
    The principles of a command economy is fundamentally flawed. Look at how the USSR failed and how there has never been a truly communist country.
    Communism isn't theoretically a command economy. The command economies employed by communists (usually some variant of Marxist Leninist thinking) were about how to force march humanity towards communism.

    If you look at anarcho-syndicalism in the Spanish civil war and the peasant collectives you can see very communist societies that were not centrally controlled like the USSR was. See also the Ukrainian Free territory. They were not command economies.

    It's also possible to have command economies in on communist systems. A large corporation like a big pharma company commands it';s own section of the economy and out state does with things like infrastructure such as nuclear power.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Dunno what any of that means.
    Simple! Dont expect something to work when it hasn't been put in the environment it was needed to grow in. Marx was quite specific that states need to industrialise before revolutionizing AND occur on a global level. Neither of these were in place and were rejected by Stalin. Just as you need a strong rule of law and peace in order for liberal democracy to work.


    Rejection of private property is meaningless; all things are private property of someone/some organisation. Maybe "rejection of private property" means everything is owned by everyone. Then you get my dilemma: either some people need to be independent of this system, own everything, but be kings not communists, or else there need to be some restrictions on how that ownership can be exercised, in which case it's not really ownership, and thus not really communism.
    Oh god, whose air are we breathing?

    I'm with Rousseau on this one:

    The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine', and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.


    The USSR was a state that tried to control everything centrally. This didn't result in dictatorship by accident; the Soviets tried hard to have democracy but they could never find a way of doing so that didn't result in some in-road against central planning.
    I could make the same claim about capitalismj. How much money do you need in order to be US president? The enviroment, particularly the economic enviroment will shape all democratic discourse.
    #

    If ideology is meant to be centrally planned, how can people be allowed own opinions? And if no one had an own opinion, how does anyone decide what to do?
    Marxists dont believe in free will: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_determinism

    This resulted in absurd situations like it being illegal for anyone in the party to disagree with a party decision which meant it was illegal for the party to ever change any decision it had made. What happened by default was that Lenin became dictator, because Lenin could change the party's decisions and no one dared arrest him despite his actions being notionally illegal. This was never intended by Lenin or by anyone else, it just happened.

    The only ways to square the circle are dictatorship and dissolution - in other words communism isn't coherent. It's not that no one has tried, or tried hard enough, or been lucky enough; communism is impossible even in principle. Maybe if there were only one living human, which, judging by the actions of the most ardent commies, might have been the end goal.
    Well yeah, dictatorship is dumb. And is one of many things i disagree with Marx on. That said, I don't think its impossible.

    If you say so. What I like about Christianity is that I get to live forever, but do I actually?
    Religion is the Opiate of the masses
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Really? Do you have a source? (Genuineley interested)
    According to Heritage India is in fact a bit freer than China, I had misremembered, but both are "Mostly Unfree" with not a lot of difference between them. Both are command economies that have been reforming and growing.

    http://www.heritage.org/index/country/india
    http://www.heritage.org/index/country/china

    That one, as i made clear. China is paradoxically one of the least communist countries in the world as they prevent the organisation of labour!
    Not true, there are at least 280 million union members in China - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Ch...f_Trade_Unions

    Except its not simple as i showed to that other poster. Additionally They are npot comparible with china as for one Hong Kong was a British colony for just under 200 years IIRC.
    Are you arguing that British colonialism makes countries rich, rather than free markets? That seems unlikely, but wouldn't really be helpful for communists making their case.

    This is possibly the only question in social science where we can really say multiple controlled experiments have been performed and all return same result.
    i'm not sure what question you're asking.
    Nothing, it's a statement. Several countries have been divided into communist and non-communist parts and the communist parts have underperformed the non-communist parts, sometimes dramatically, and sometimes very dramatically.

    I think the point i was making is that command economies like china (Though undesirable for many reasons, notably ethical) do produce greater economic out put, have greater stability and have the benefit of being able to make more long term decisions.

    I'm quite happy to be proved wrong!
    China's output adjusted for purchasing power parity is $14,000 per person compared to about $40,000 in the UK. The UK has been one of the richest countries in the world for about 400 years, whereas the PRC was recently as poor as Sub-Saharan African. This is ignoring the fact that China's relatively good performance in recent years has come as a result of free market reforms.

    Although ability to make long term decisions is arguably, one of the best long term decisions they could have made would have been to not go communist and obviously that isn't a decision that the communist government made!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Simple! Dont expect something to work when it hasn't been put in the environment it was needed to grow in. Marx was quite specific that states need to industrialise before revolutionizing AND occur on a global level. Neither of these were in place and were rejected by Stalin. Just as you need a strong rule of law and peace in order for liberal democracy to work.
    Communism never successfully grew in any of those environments either, so at what point do we just say that Marx was full of ****?

    Oh god, whose air are we breathing?

    I'm with Rousseau on this one:

    The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine', and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.
    It's not a moral claim, just a factual one. All decisions are ultimately made by individuals, so all property is ultimately private property. Communal property is just one possible pattern of private property.

    I could make the same claim about capitalismj. How much money do you need in order to be US president? The enviroment, particularly the economic enviroment will shape all democratic discourse.
    #
    You have missed the point which is that in the US you have a substantial degree of personal freedom that is not dependent on the dictates of the president. The US, while not a perfectly liberal country, was deliberately set up this way with a number of things - particularly matters of conscience - explicitly excluded from the state's purview. But that means that, in the US, there is not total ownership of the community by the community, there is also some individual property held separately by people and not in common. The US constitution is incompatible with communism for this reason.

    Marxists dont believe in free will: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_determinism
    Economic determinism is the idea that history is pushed along a particular path because deviations from that path experience negative feedbacks. It doesn't mean that everyone supports that path, or spontaneously agrees with following it, it means that even those who don't want to follow it end up being forced to. The Soviet state collapsed in large part because it couldn't make decisions, i.e. it was forced off Marx's proposed path by strong negative feedbacks against the institutions set up to introduce Marx's ideas.

    Well yeah, dictatorship is dumb. And is one of many things i disagree with Marx on. That said, I don't think its impossible.
    Of course it's not impossible, but Marx didn't invent the idea of dictatorship, nor did he advocate a dictatorship of one man.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Communism isn't theoretically a command economy. The command economies employed by communists (usually some variant of Marxist Leninist thinking) were about how to force march humanity towards communism.

    If you look at anarcho-syndicalism in the Spanish civil war and the peasant collectives you can see very communist societies that were not centrally controlled like the USSR was. See also the Ukrainian Free territory. They were not command economies.

    It's also possible to have command economies in on communist systems. A large corporation like a big pharma company commands it';s own section of the economy and out state does with things like infrastructure such as nuclear power.
    ahh interesting, will search some of this up.

    I was always under the impression that if resources were allocated specifically regardless of whether or not it was done by the central government, it is still communism.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by darkvibes)
    ahh interesting, will search some of this up.

    I was always under the impression that if resources were allocated specifically regardless of whether or not it was done by the central government, it is still communism.
    Capitalism has always relied on some level on some level of state planning anyway. We still have it now.

    There isn't actually a state in theoretical communism. The state is seen as monopoly of force that protects property rights and capitalists in general and should whither away. There was a lot of division among Marxists/Communists about how to solve the problem of how to actually get to communism. The massive totalitarian police states are very much not communist. Lenin even described what he helped created as state-capitalism. The USSR was refereed to as communist more for various political reasons and the regime that presided over it was made up of communists.

    The problem is more about is communism actually possible in the real world and is it even worth trying to get to it if you get things like North Korea emerging in any attempts to create it.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    "Capitalism is very far from a perfect system, but so far we have yet to find anything that clearly does a better job of meeting human needs than a regulated capitalist economy coupled with a welfare and health care system that meets the basic needs of those who do not thrive in the capitalist economy.

    If we ever do find a better system, I'll be happy to call myself an anti-capitalist. Marx saw that capitalism is a wasteful, irrational system, a system which controls us when we should be controlling it. That insight is still valid; but we can now see that the construction of a free and equal society is a more difficult task than Marx realised."

    ~ Peter Singer
    I agree with Peter Singer on Marxism and communism, although I slightly differ in that I think there have been sizeable more short term libertarian socialist experiments that point towards a possibility of something actually resembling communism may be possible. I also think we should using high tech automation for these kind of ends as well.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Capitalism has always relied on some level on some level of state planning anyway. We still have it now.

    There isn't actually a state in theoretical communism. The state is seen as monopoly of force that protects property rights and capitalists in general and should whither away. There was a lot of division among Marxists/Communists about how to solve the problem of how to actually get to communism. The massive totalitarian police states are very much not communist. Lenin even described what he helped created as state-capitalism. The USSR was refereed to as communist more for various political reasons and the regime that presided over it was made up of communists.

    The problem is more about is communism actually possible in the real world and is it even worth trying to get to it if you get things like North Korea emerging in any attempts to create it.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    "Capitalism is very far from a perfect system, but so far we have yet to find anything that clearly does a better job of meeting human needs than a regulated capitalist economy coupled with a welfare and health care system that meets the basic needs of those who do not thrive in the capitalist economy.

    If we ever do find a better system, I'll be happy to call myself an anti-capitalist. Marx saw that capitalism is a wasteful, irrational system, a system which controls us when we should be controlling it. That insight is still valid; but we can now see that the construction of a free and equal society is a more difficult task than Marx realised."

    ~ Peter Singer
    I agree with Peter Singer on Marxism and communism, although I slightly differ in that I think there have been sizeable more short term libertarian socialist experiments that point towards a possibility of something actually resembling communism may be possible. I also think we should using high tech automation for these kind of ends as well.
    Theoretical communism imo will never work, look at USSR who failed to do it. It doesnt consider the free market forces that will inevitably occur, since all humans have unlimited needs.

    Capitalism is flawed, that's why the mixed economy is the perfect model. All countries are really mixed economies, just some are closer to capitalism and others are closer to socialism.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by darkvibes)
    Theoretical communism imo will never work, look at USSR who failed to do it. It doesnt consider the free market forces that will inevitably occur, since all humans have unlimited needs.

    Capitalism is flawed, that's why the mixed economy is the perfect model. All countries are really mixed economies, just some are closer to capitalism and others are closer to socialism.
    I certainly support a mixed social democrat economy over a more capitalist one. But mixed economies involve a lot of state planning.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I certainly support a mixed social democrat economy over a more capitalist one. But mixed economies involve a lot of state planning.
    Yh the state planning involved is mainly to combat the issues that capitalism gives us e.g. monopolies
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by darkvibes)
    Yh the state planning involved is mainly to combat the issues that capitalism gives us e.g. monopolies
    The point I'm trying to make is that equating a command economy with communism doesn't work, unless you think we live in a communist society right now.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    The point I'm trying to make is that equating a command economy with communism doesn't work, unless you think we live in a communist society right now.
    lol yh i agree too
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Observatory


    I'll try and answer your points in order.

    Uh, I know India is freer than China. You need to show how it has a planned economy to the extent of China. You can have s planned economy AND have things like press freedoms

    Sorry I should have clarified, China is hilarious in that it does allow trade unions and the like but barres them from actually from holding meetings!

    With Hong Kong and China, not really I just disagreeing with your point that it is exactly the same as China. Colonialism could well be better than free trade controversially, but I'm not arguing for that.

    Pretty sure Russia overtook the U.S. In the seventies. The point is moot though as it was a nationalist state with a planned economy and was not Marxist.

    Eh? This is getting confusing. We were comparing India and China. Not China and the UK.

    Your next post


    Well Marx never put a date and he can't conclusively be proved wrong. When you factor in things like automation etc do we really think capitalism is the end point of economic thought? Marx talked a whole lot of rubbish about all sorts of things, but the bulk of his thesis is coherent and remains valid.

    David Harvey made some good points on the recent economic crash for instance.

    Your point on communal property doesn't make sense (at least to me)

    Freedom from government- not from corporations, awful parents, poor education, being deformed because you can't afford healthcare ...

    Well, Marx would point to Russia's semi feudal society and say it was not ready to transition, which it wasn't.
    If America became properly communist we could see for definite. As it is a liberal democracy has yet to turn to communism (they came close in Germany)

    Pretty sure the dictatorship of the proletariat was one individual and was Marxs idea.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Davij038)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016.../?sf24179674=1Thoughts?I think Marx would be rolling in his grave, although after Stalin i'm sure he's already rolled himself to dust.
    It kind of makes sense. No fundamentalist leftist party - meaning they believe in the abolition of the capitalist economic system - with any self-respect can allow its symbols to become commercially traded goods that help companies gain a bigger share of markets.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.