True, people have called their systems Marxism without being true to his words. Even more people have called their systems Christianity without being true to words attributed to Christ.
If we wave our hands and disclaim every false use of a founder’s words we will have nothing left, and no discussion can ensue.
IOW, yeah, I understand your frustration but you’re being Sisyphus and will get just as far as he ever got.
Did their economic system have anything to do with that, or was that America’s fault too?
Which system do you imagine works on that principle?
You have to give socialism and communism some credit: unlike capitalism and feudalism, at least they are not designed as pyramid schemes.
Capitalism is not designed as a pyramid scheme.
So we are largely agreed then on the exploitative, oppressive nature of capitalism and its particular forms of empire. As to whether such oppressive structures should be counted as “successes” may take a little more clarification.
As for looking at capitalism rather than say Stalinism, well, that has not been a global threat for a while and hardly anyone defends it or holds it up as a model to emulate. Capitalism, on the other hand, is everywhere and is defended by all sorts of people, especially those who benefit hugely from it and have considerable influence over media, education and politics. Thus the emphasis on it.
Finally, critiques of the Soviet Union are often put forward to discredit any critical thinking about capitalism; they are often a variant of There Is No Alternative, or TINA. I propose we think instead that There Is an Alternative, Many Interesting Alternatives, or TIA MARIA.Cheers!
A passage comes to mind from historian Barbara Tuchman’s book “The March of Folly”:
Wooden-headedness, the source of self-deception, is a factor that plays a remarkably large role in government. It consists in assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs. It is acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts. It is epitomized in a historian’s statement about Philip II of Spain, the surpassing wooden-head of all sovereigns: “No experience of the failure of his policy could shake his belief in its essential excellence.”
Apparently, no historical failure of every major attempt at egalitarian communalism can shake your belief that such a thing must be somehow possible; and that therefore either no one’s really given it a fair try or else there are just a few bugs to work out. I remain unconvinced.
Yes, we know that full scale communism doesn’t work; not for groups larger than maybe a couple of hundred people.
And we know that full scale uncontrolled capitalism doesn’t work; not for most people in the society, and probably not in the long run for the few. (And yes, I know that’s not what the USA has; though it’s been veering closer lately.)
They both eventually run into the same problem, if in different styles: a concentration of decision making power and of wealth in the hands of a few people who don’t feel required to benefit the “general welfare” of the rest. It’s probably a species problem, not only a type-of-economy problem. And they both wind up destroying their own benefits; uncontrolled capitalism winds up destroying useful competition, communism winds up not providing for needs, and in both cases most individuals can’t get what they need or want.
The question is, can we come up with a system that does work, for at least most people, at least most of the time; and that can continue to do so without eating itself?
Yes: regulated capitalism. It works great.
Thorny locust has offered a response I support. I would only add that as a historian I am not as swayed by Barbara Tuchman and her name-calling.
Well-regulated capitalism might. The trick would be figuring out the right regulations, and keeping them in force.
And I really don’t think that’s what we’ve got right now.
I also think it’s going to have to come with a large side of carefully applied socialism. Roads. Communication systems. Medical care. Safety nets. Etc.
The same applies to “free market capitalism” and “trickle-down theory” too, yet a surprising number of people still espouse those ideas too.
Even if we did (and I also don’t think that’s what we have right now), we have at best a few decades of evidence for it and already signs that it can also go sideways
I agree, but that’s not exactly a new idea. Even Adam Smith talked about the importance of regulation in keeping capitalism functioning and monopoly-free. People often misrepresent The Wealth of Nations as being against regulation, but that isn’t true. Smith was against monopolies, and in his day monopolies were often enforced by government regulation. He supported other forms of regulations, as should any capitalist.
We’re certainly far closer than any non-capitalist system has been.
None of those things are “socialism”. Socialism does not mean “when the government does stuff”, it means “government ownership of the means of production”. Safety nets and roads are not socialism. Universal healthcare as practiced in Canada or Germany is not socialism; neither is a public option. I don’t know what you mean by “communication systems” but while some countries have government owned broadcast systems I think we can all agree that the ones where that is the only form of media are pretty fucking terrible.
I think the way that socialists try to claim the successes of liberalism because their own ideology delivers nothing but death and suffering is pretty insidious and I wish that so many allegedly liberal progressives wouldn’t fall for it.
If by “free market capitalism” you refer to completely deregulated libertarianism a la Somalia, then you are of course correct. On the other hand, if you are using the term to refer to regulated capitalism as practiced in every liberal economy - the way the term is generally used in the real world, in my experience - then you are extremely wrong. Could you clarify what you mean by “free market capitalism”?
As opposed to other economic systems that delivered such stellar results for decades?
No country in the real world is currently practicing genuine free market capitalism; because that would require allowing the workforce to move from country to country as easily as production does.
The standard should be higher than “works less poorly than other things we’ve tried, at least for a short while before going off the rails”
A Marxist or at least “Marxish” critique of capitalism is the argument that the power to control labour is inherently undemocratic, hierarchical, and designed to move money from those who directly produce goods and services to those who control wealth. Thus the pyramid: shit flows down, money flows up.
One need not be a Marxist to appreciate the power of capital to control labour. Adam Smith noted “Labour is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities…The power which great fortune immediately and directly conveys is the power of purchasing a certain command over labour which it enables him to purchase or command.”
It follows, in this Marxish fashion, that an economic system that appropriates wealth from the direct producers, whether these be slaves, serfs, or wage workers, is one based on exploitation. This would include the Soviet Union, which appropriated wealth from workers and peasants in ways harsher than the capitalism of the Cold War period.
There have been economies that did not operate in this way, though they have tended to be small and not interested in piling up edifices and histories to glorify themselves. Thus we tend not to notice them. It is a fair point to suggest they are liable to be overwhelmed by large, militarized states, but that is not an argument for the moral superiority of such states.
Furthermore, such competition for resources may have had some validity in ages of scarcity. We have not been in a position of scarcity for a very long time. And we can indeed thank capitalism for that, as Marx did. That our real problem now is constant growth for no purpose but profit suggests it is time to consider seriously real alternatives. These may include forming, out of necessity rather than high principles, smaller communities, more democratic processes, including democratic workplaces, and degrowth in the Global North.
None of that seems very scary to me. Nor does any of it imply “Stalinism” or the need for warnings against “communism” of the Soviet variety, which is something entirely different. Nor is it inevitable. It may, however, be our last best chance.
Here endeth the sermon, and I’m out of this thread.
So your guess is that by “free market capitalism” @Gyrate would not be referring to the platonic ideal but to the thing actual countries have actually done?
In that case, I would say that they are indeed extremely wrong about the claim that this statement applies to “free market capitalism” as actually practiced:
In that case,
Because that kind of “free market capitalism” doesn’t have a long string of historical failures; just the opposite, in fact.