Look at the history of China. Always had a very strong state control over the country. Until capitalism, it consistently led the worldin technology. Statism, is not socialism.
Burgerman wrote:Its not capitalism though. There was no free trade, no or little ownership of property or business by individuals. And yes it was still socialist.
Capitalism is the thing that stopped them dying with minor infection or rotten teeth or starvation. Capitalism gave them freedom. Choice. And it made the country wealthy on the back of it, allowing people to have a decent standard of living with such things as enough food, power, heat, transport, medical care, education, the ability to afford a safety net for those that couldnt work, Its the thing that made people free. And fed them. And made them live longer, healthier lives.Look at the history of China. Always had a very strong state control over the country. Until capitalism, it consistently led the worldin technology. Statism, is not socialism.
It had ABSOLUTE control over everything and everyone. Almost zero indiviudual freedoms. And predictably desperately poor. It was a communist dictatorship, and a socialist economy. The only thing it led the world in was totalitarian control, exreme poverty, death, lack of freedom, and mortality.
Sorry. When I grew up china had nothing. Literally eating dead roadkill and dead babies for protein. And no power, no medical care, no clean water, certainly no transport for the masses. As far as technology goes, if they had any, it wasnt obvious! And certainly didnt help them under their system. Or lead the world!
There has never been proper capitalist society in its pure form, there has always been monopoly and monopsomy issues in capitalism. Which has got even worse today with the massive concentration of capital that took place over the last 40 years.
Burgerman wrote:Its not capitalism though. There was no free trade, no or little ownership of property or business by individuals. And yes it was still socialist.
Capitalism is the thing that stopped them dying with minor infection or rotten teeth or starvation. Capitalism gave them freedom. Choice. And it made the country wealthy on the back of it, allowing people to have a decent standard of living with such things as enough food, power, heat, transport, medical care, education, the ability to afford a safety net for those that couldnt work, Its the thing that made people free. And fed them. And made them live longer, healthier lives.Look at the history of China. Always had a very strong state control over the country. Until capitalism, it consistently led the worldin technology. Statism, is not socialism.
It had ABSOLUTE control over everything and everyone. Almost zero indiviudual freedoms. And predictably desperately poor. It was a communist dictatorship, and a socialist economy. The only thing it led the world in was totalitarian control, exreme poverty, death, lack of freedom, and mortality.
Sorry. When I grew up china had nothing. Literally eating dead roadkill and dead babies for protein. And no power, no medical care, no clean water, certainly no transport for the masses. As far as technology goes, if they had any, it wasnt obvious! And certainly didnt help them under their system. Or lead the world!
capitalism
ˈkapɪt(ə)lɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: capitalism
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
"an era of free-market capitalism"
synonyms: private enterprise, free enterprise, private ownership, privatized industries, the free market, individualism; laissez-faire
socialism
ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism; More
communism, Bolshevism;
radicalism, militancy;
progressivism, social democracy;
labourism;
Marxism, Leninism, Marxism–Leninism, neo-Marxism, Trotskyism, Maoism
antonyms: conservatism
policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism; More
communism, Bolshevism;
radicalism, militancy;
progressivism, social democracy;
labourism;
Marxism, Leninism, Marxism–Leninism, neo-Marxism, Trotskyism, Maoism
antonyms: conservatism
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
I come in peace, no point in arguing. Just a different perspective.
Now you could argue you always need somebody in control, fair point (though some anarchists would argue with this). BUT as Tony Benn said,
"In the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
Karl Marx denied being a Marxist. He mostly called himself a Democrat. His inspiration for his whole PHILOSOPHICAL analysis was, the Paris commune where directors of the means of production were elected and D selectable by the people.
Russia was never communist, possibly socialist (socialism, some argued, was a period of transformation from the capitalist society, a society where the means of production are controlled by the top 1%, be that the bureaucratic Russian top 1% in the USSR or the privately owned 1% in the West. In either case there is still 1% at the top of society who own and control, or just control as in the case of Russia, the means of production, that the people "cannot get rid of".
It is taught in schools that Russia was state capitalism,
the West has private capitalism, but at the end of the day they are both capitalism, and neither is communism. Communism, is a transformation in what Marx called "the social relationships". And it was fundamentally for Mark about whether 1% control society, or society control the 1%. Or at least in the modern day, the direction in which the 1% drags us.
Whether this is possible or not is another discussion. I don't think it is, I think the right-wing have won all the arguments and the left virtually doesn't exist any longer. But, the right-wing have won the arguments fighting straw men.
If you really want to attack communism you have to attack democracy.
Another thing that needs to be pointed out in any truthful discussion is this;
Is state capitalism completely inferior to private capitalism? The USSR inferior to the USA?
In the period of the birth of the USSR, Russia went from a backward none capitalist monarchal society that couldn't even put laces in the boots of soldiers, to the world number 2 superpower. The 1st 1 into space. China, is a massive economic superpower.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests