I know there are many branches of Communist thought, but it was my understanding that the central idea of communism was that their economic & governmental policies would result in more healthcare, more technology, more education, more self determination and an end to colonialism and exploitation. Basically it would result in an end to exploitation by the upper class and an empowering of the peasant class.
Hasn’t this been accomplished in the western first world? The Iraq war, which may have been colonial in nature, was denounced by most western countries and their inhabitants. That should speak of the status colonialism has in today’s world. In fact, there really aren’t any colonies anymore (not in the sense of colonies of the 19th & early 20th century). At least not first world colonies. Syria has colonized Lebanon for example, but Syria isn’t a first world, westernized country.
Virtually every western country guarantees healthcare to its citizens. They all also have a variety of labor laws protecting the lower class from the excesses of the upper class (min. vacation time, minimum wage, laws against working off the clock).
Education is subsidized, technology & innovation are going forward at rapid paces. Self determinization is possible because virtually anyone can get an education in whatever they want (assuming they have the innate intellect & self discipline to do so).
First world western countries have free speech & free press. Religion isn’t used to control the masses into submitting to the ruling class.
There are still failings though. The rich can bribe politicians for one thing. Intervention in foreign countries for economic concerns still occurs (but is not as brutal as it once was at least). But i would say we have come pretty close.
So, have the enemies of communism obtained the communist dream of an empowered peasant class and a restrained elite class? If so, does this have any effect on the philosophies of neo-communists.
You are erroneously approaching communism and capitalism as opposites. I know this is taken as gospel by many but only when it isn’t given much thought.
Communism is simply the end-goal of capitalism. The capitalist strives to attain a monopoly in business. Communism is merely an enforced monopoly encompassing the entire economy.
At any rate, western countries are more socialist than capitalist. When citizens are forking over around half of their income to governments after income tax and sales tax etc. is all taken into account, how free is that free market? So maybe western society is just a covert attempt at Communism. Or maybe Communism was just another brand of exploitation while purporting to empower the workers. (I’m not a big fan of Karl Marx.)
As for the Communist utopia, step outside. If you see any utopia, let me know what city you live in. I would like to move there.
Of course, I can think of one big exception that doesn’t. (Well, okay, healthcare in the U.S. won’t be denied for dire emergencies but other care will.)
I don’t think they have…But, the capitalist societies have gone far enough in that direction to prevent, say, outright revolution. It was recently pointed out in The American Prospect that the liberals in the U.S. probably serve to save capitalism from itself. I.e., things like the New Deal and such moved things enough in a direction away from the most frightening excesses of laissez-faire capitalism to preserve the basic capitalist economy (and still-highly-wealth-polarized society).
One major tenet of communism is that the workers own the means of production. That is the case is much of the developed world, where the majority of corporate shares are owned by workers through their pension funds. However, pension owned shares are generally not voted upon, and rarely are exchanged.
I never said we were in a utopia by any means. What i am stating is that my understanding of the goals of the ‘communist dream’ were things like empowerment of the working class, protection of the masses from the brutality of the elite, an end to colonialism & imperialism, healthcare & education for all, self determinization, etc. Western countries have come much closer to these things than any communist country.
I’m no expert on Communism, but I believe that Mrax envisioned an evolution from Capitalism to Communism. In that sense, he saw communism as the natural end product of capitalism. While I agree with you about capitalism having no goal, perhaps that is what Lander was getting at.
Ah. Well, no, not really. Marx didn’t think that Capitalism was going to “evolve” into COmmunism except in the sense that the one vaguely led into the other. Rather, Capitalism was going to sow the seeds of its own destruction [insert your own favorite Marx rant about the demonic Bourgoise Capitalists] and then the workers would, well, kill them all.
The modern world, even France, cannot be said to be Communist in the sense that Marx talked about, nor Lenin or Mao. I’m sure you could find some sort of Communism that someone has “uncovered” that wed fit, but by then it would be so vague as to be meaningless.
One might be say that the West is socialist, and there certainly are socialist elements to it. However, the basic system in the US is essentially Capitalist and the socialist elements exist largely to support the long-term capitalist values. Some other Western states, such as France, do display a different ethos. France, as a state, employs a quarter of all the working population. This has caused problems due to the inordinate government payouts (and very generous social pensions and benefits). These are hard to touch because of the strong unions and such, and the tax rate can’t give them enough money back.
Well, I’m sure Lander will show up and clarify. Our versions are not all that different.
Not sure if the rest of your post was directed at me, but I certainly don’t think the West is communist, even in the more socialist countries. Can’t disagree with anything you said.
As for whether the West has acheived the goals of communism, I don’t think so. I’d be surprised if a ture believer in communism would countenance the wide disparity of material wealth between various people in, say, the US. Plus, workers are routinely laid off w/ limitted unemployment benefits.
smiling: “In practice, the US does have a universal healthcare system.”
Really? Tell that to the seniors who choose between food and prescription drugs, to the children who have reached 10 or 12 years of age and have never been the dentist even once, or, for that matter, to the many people I know who are forking over hundreds of dollars every month in order to purchase their own health insurance because their employers don’t offer any.
Yes (as jshore said) if you’re critically ill and you go to a public hospital emergency room, you can get some kind of care, but that does not a “universal healthcare system” make. Assuming you have it, would you give up your health insurance and change places with someone who has none?
As to the OP, it’s conventional to distinguish between “socialism” (which comes in many varieties and forms) and “communism” (a term that is usually, though not always, reserved to describe Marxist goals). It’s not controversial (also see jshore) to point out how the social welfare policies of liberals in the US and, even moreso, social democrats in Europe, have implemented many of the most important goals of socialism without the need to eliminate capitalism. And I’m sure Marx would want to say a lot of things about the US were he around today. But he would certainly not say that it had realized the goals he attached to communism. Working poor people struggling to make ends meet, living without adequate health care, while state services are cut and millionaires and billionaires get more and more taxcuts? I don’t think so.
Mandelstam:Yes (as jshore said) if you’re critically ill and you go to a public hospital emergency room, you can get some kind of care, but that does not a “universal healthcare system” make.
It is also about the most inefficient form of socialized healthcare that could be dreamed up: it ignores early diagnosis and prevention to focus exclusively on the emergency treatment of severe conditions, which is extremely expensive.
The OP has a point that many modern societies have achieved more social equality and widespread prosperity than in the days that Marx was complaining about. But it’s not capitalism per se or “enmity to communism” that brought that about; it’s the construction of mixed economies that combine some capitalist market practices with some socialist social policies.
Capitalism without some socialism produces a largely impoverished, inadequately regulated “winner-take-all” society; socialism without some capitalism produces economic stagnation and suffocating centralized control. And both of them also require a strong dose of non-economic principles concerning fundamental universal rights and freedoms.
I’m always amazed when people state this as if it were a scientifically proven fact. Do you have any actual evidence that this is true? Probalby the closest any place has come to a completely capitalist society is Hong Kong before the Chinese took over. No sane person would say it was “largely impoverished”. It had one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. And this while abosorbing millions (yes, millions) of refugees in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
Of course capitalism has a goal. If there was no goal inherent in capitalism, it would not be employed by capitalists to attain goals. The goal of capitalism is the goal of the capitalist; to attain a market monopoly by out-performing the competition.
The Communism I refer to is the one that espouses central state control of economic management. The different brands of Communism all have this in common, right?
The essential “goal” of Communism was achieving a society based on the principle of “from each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.” According to orthodox Communist theory, such a society would be self-running and all governmental control would be eliminated (mention this simularity to Libertarianism to a Libertarian if you want annoy one). In practice, real world Communists acknowledged that the perfect Communist utopia hadn’t been achieved and it was necessary to maintain governmental control to ensure individuals were holding up their end.
By analogy, I guess you could define an ideal Capitalist society as one based on the principle of “from each, according to his ability; to each, also according to his ability.” In other words, everyone gets as much as they can earn for themselves. This connection between effort and reward makes Capitalism much more likely to run itself without government control.
Like Communism, Capitalism doesn’t exist in its ideal state in the real world. Due to various reasons, most Western nations are run on the principle of “from each, according to his ability; to each, a certain set minimum to cover his needs plus whatever extra can be earned by his ability.”
John Mace: "Do you have any actual evidence that this is true? "
Well for starters there’s the history of the first nation to industrialize: Great Britain. During the nineteenth century, coincident with the zenith of Britain’s economic power, about 1/3 of the urban population lived in a state of meager subsistence: just enough for food and shelter, and not very good food and shelter at that. Nothing to fall back on if you became t0o ill or old to work, b/c there wasn’t enough extra for such people to save–except perhaps to cover the costs of their own burials. (Many agricultural laborers were even worse off.) During WWI a shocking percentage of young men were unfit to serve due their impoverished upbringing. By the end of the nineteenth century and especially after WWI it was clear to almost everyone that laissez-faire capitalism was simply unworkable. (Boom and bust cycles also hurt the middle classes and some of the wealthy).
Although “socialism” (a term that had almost nothing to do with Marx during this period, and was used synonymously with “collectivism”) was discussed in various forms at the beginning of the nineteenth century, you didn’t really get the development of a reliable and social welfare until the end of the century and the turn of the next. And that happened partly because of the pressure of socialists and the labor movement, and partly as a way of compromising and therefore fending off more radical forms of socialism (such as Marx’s).
The interesting thing is that if you read Adam Smith, writing back in 1776, he’s well aware that industry requires some kind of communal welfare to offset the inevitable environmental and “moral” damage to industrial workers.
And you have datat that the population of GB was better off before that? Oh, I forgot. They all lived in pastoral bliss before industrialization.
Seriously, do you know the quality of life in GB in the 16th century? Life expectancy? Infant mortality? Any stats? I challenged Kimtsu to back up his statement with facts. If you care to take up that challenge, I’d be happy to hear any facts you have as well.
He didn’t say that they were better off beforehand. When agriculture was the main source of wealth, society and the economy were constructed differently. Land was the means of production, the working classes worked in agriculture, and by and large in the UK did not own the land that they farmed. The Enclosures movement from the late 17th century is what enabled the UK to start its industrialisation earlier than anyone else, as small farms were lumped into more efficient large estates, and more food was produced, enabling the population to grow. These extra people weren’t needed in agriculture, so started the rural exodus, moved to the cities, and participated in the Industrial Revolution.
BUT: they went from being dirt poor and exploited agricultural workers to being dirt poor and expoited urban workers. Ownership of the means of production shifted away from the landowners and towards people with cash (land isn’t something you can really use to raise capital, it’s like selling your factory). As far as the guy working 17 hrs in the local cotton mill is concerned, having left the poverty and unemployment of his rural origins, it’s a question of “same sh*t, different hat”.
It’s very much like China today: they can send rockets into space, but the bloke working in a paddy-filed in Szechuan has about the same quality of life as his grandfather did.
Essentially, until Marxists and Socialists became organised, and until the workers joined into a significant movement, those who owned the means of production and the capital exploited them as much as possible.
The same happens now, except that we tend to sit in front of computers instead. Employers, as a general rule will try and obtain as much work from their employees for as low a cost as possible. That’s why we need unions and state intervention into capitalism, and why most EU countries have mixed economies.
This thread is going to go on for a while isn’t it?
No, I said what I meant and I am right. Capitalism as a system has no goal; the only goals that exist in any way, shape, or form, are the individual desires of individual laborers. But that is not a systemic goal in the same sense that Communism as one.
Horror stories. In any event, you’ll note I didn’t say it was a universal government system. It is a combination of private and public funds and opportunities available to those willing to get healthcare. Those without private insurance can get public insurance in many places, including state and local groups.
You need to follow my questions back to the original issue presented by Kinetsu:
“Capitalism without some socialism produces a largely impoverished, inadequately regulated “winner-take-all” society”
my bolding. I’ve asked for examples that show capitalism produces those conditions. All I’ve seen so far are some tidbits about GB that are not in historical context. No one has demonstrated that capitalism produced the poverty that existed in GB in the 19th century since, as far as I can tell, that poverty existed prior to that time. And it’s not like GB was non-capitalist beforehand and then suddenly became capitalist. But for the sake of argument, I’ll accept that. It’s mostly incorrect, but it doesn’t change the conculusion.
If you can show me a society that went from socialism to captialism and was WORSE off for the transition, then you’d have an argument. The closest we might have for that is Russia, but that experiment is still in progress, and I’d hardly call Russia a bastion of capitalism.
My example of Hong Kong (see my earlier post) still stands. Got a better one?