Capitalism, Communism, or Socialism?...

[Newero]

That is a really bad explanation. Hell, you even used "meat packing" as an example. You so much offend me.

This is what happened with Pol Pot in Cambodia. The teachers, engineers, and intelligentsia were reeducated in the fields as farmers, and the large farmers were killed. It led to mass starvation. It is history. 90% of the teachers were killed between 1975 and 1979. It is the most extreme example of how communism and leftist ideology can force reeducation.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 33851.html

Pol Pot isn't really the best example of communism.

[Byzconia]

Mixed economy. I consider myself to be an eclectic when it comes to what system (of any kind) should I adhere to, and I would be very willing to mix different policies and see what happens, because I believe no system is 100% right, and no system is 100% wrong.

^This is the correct answer. Frankly, it's the only one tenable from a rational perspective.

[Byzconia]

That is a really bad explanation. Hell, you even used "meat packing" as an example. You so much offend me.

This is what happened with Pol Pot in Cambodia. The teachers, engineers, and intelligentsia were reeducated in the fields as farmers, and the large farmers were killed. It led to mass starvation. It is history. 90% of the teachers were killed between 1975 and 1979. It is the most extreme example of how communism and leftist ideology can force reeducation.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 33851.html

I feel the need to point out that, from a purely historical perspective, the Khmer Rouge were rather exceptional as far as communist movements go. While they certainly supported some kind of primitivist agrarian system, it wasn't directly related to the main currents of communist thought at the time (that being Soviet Marxism-Leninism and Chinese Maoism), but was rather out on its own. It could be argued it took far more from previous peasant agrarian movements like the Norodniks than the ideas of Marx and Lenin that inspired other Communist movements (note: I'm not saying the KR was influenced by the Norodniks--there's zero evidence of that--just that that's a stronger line of ideological continuity). Then there's also the fact that they were actively opposed by Cambodia's "official" communist party, were eventually overthrown by the Vietnamese communists, and even had active political and military support from many Western states including the US and Britiain.

Also note: I'm not a leftist, so this isn't me going, "They weren't True Communists, so it doesn't count!" I'm simply making an historical observation that the Khmer Rouge, specifically, were pretty "out there" even by commie standards, so using them as an argument against communism in-general is pretty weak. Think of them more like the Westboro of communism, but with a lot more mass murder.

[-Ocelot-]

This is what happened with Pol Pot in Cambodia. The teachers, engineers, and intelligentsia were reeducated in the fields as farmers, and the large farmers were killed. It led to mass starvation. It is history. 90% of the teachers were killed between 1975 and 1979. It is the most extreme example of how communism and leftist ideology can force reeducation.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 33851.html

Pol Pot isn't really the best example of communism.

Not real communism, eh?

[Newero]

Pol Pot isn't really the best example of communism.

Not real communism, eh?

Well, it isn't.

[Washington Resistance Army]

This is what happened with Pol Pot in Cambodia. The teachers, engineers, and intelligentsia were reeducated in the fields as farmers, and the large farmers were killed. It led to mass starvation. It is history. 90% of the teachers were killed between 1975 and 1979. It is the most extreme example of how communism and leftist ideology can force reeducation.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 33851.html

I feel the need to point out that, from a purely historical perspective, the Khmer Rouge were rather exceptional as far as communist movements go. While they certainly supported some kind of primitivist agrarian system, it wasn't directly related to the main currents of communist thought at the time (that being Soviet Marxism-Leninism and Chinese Maoism), but was rather out on its own. It could be argued it took far more from previous peasant agrarian movements like the Norodniks than the ideas of Marx and Lenin that inspired other Communist movements (note: I'm not saying the KR was influenced by the Norodniks--there's zero evidence of that--just that that's a stronger line of ideological continuity). Then there's also the fact that they were actively opposed by Cambodia's "official" communist party, were eventually overthrown by the Vietnamese communists, and even had active political and military support from many Western states including the US and Britiain.

Also note: I'm not a leftist, so this isn't me going, "They weren't True Communists, so it doesn't count!" I'm simply making an historical observation that the Khmer Rouge, specifically, were pretty "out there" even by commie standards, so using them as an argument against communism in-general is pretty weak. Think of them more like the Westboro of communism, but with a lot more mass murder.

They didn't really support primitivism or even really agrarianism or anything, that's a really severe misunderstanding a lot of people make of their goals because it's hard to understand fully without delving into tons of academic works.

Broadly speaking the point of emptying the cities and sending everyone to work in the fields was to accomplish what the CPK called the Super Great Leap Forward. The plan was to accomplish a truly massive rice harvest which would then be sold to other nations and then the CPK would acquire large amounts of modern industrial equipment. The goal there being to launch forward from a primitive semi-feudal nation towards a final end goal of communism without any of the preceding stages seen in Marxism-Leninism or Maoism. Naturally this failed because the country was already destroyed by civil war and American bombing when they took power and their policies only made things even worse and it all just devolved into an orgy of violence as they tried to hold onto power.

I wouldn't say Democratic Kampuchea was a good example of how evil communism is or anything, but it is a fantastic example of the failings of Marxism. As I've said in other threads Marx was profoundly mistaken and it has traditionally been the rural peasantry that is the revolutionary class and because nothing in Marxism is predicated on that being true everything kinda falls apart when a revolution actually happens.

[Byzconia]

I feel the need to point out that, from a purely historical perspective, the Khmer Rouge were rather exceptional as far as communist movements go. While they certainly supported some kind of primitivist agrarian system, it wasn't directly related to the main currents of communist thought at the time (that being Soviet Marxism-Leninism and Chinese Maoism), but was rather out on its own. It could be argued it took far more from previous peasant agrarian movements like the Norodniks than the ideas of Marx and Lenin that inspired other Communist movements (note: I'm not saying the KR was influenced by the Norodniks--there's zero evidence of that--just that that's a stronger line of ideological continuity). Then there's also the fact that they were actively opposed by Cambodia's "official" communist party, were eventually overthrown by the Vietnamese communists, and even had active political and military support from many Western states including the US and Britiain.

Also note: I'm not a leftist, so this isn't me going, "They weren't True Communists, so it doesn't count!" I'm simply making an historical observation that the Khmer Rouge, specifically, were pretty "out there" even by commie standards, so using them as an argument against communism in-general is pretty weak. Think of them more like the Westboro of communism, but with a lot more mass murder.

They didn't really support primitivism or even really agrarianism or anything, that's a really severe misunderstanding a lot of people make of their goals because it's hard to understand fully without delving into tons of academic works.

Broadly speaking the point of emptying the cities and sending everyone to work in the fields was to accomplish what the CPK called the Super Great Leap Forward. The plan was to accomplish a truly massive rice harvest which would then be sold to other nations and then the CPK would acquire large amounts of modern industrial equipment. The goal there being to launch forward from a primitive semi-feudal nation towards a final end goal of communism without any of the preceding stages seen in Marxism-Leninism or Maoism. Naturally this failed because the country was already destroyed by civil war and American bombing when they took power and their policies only made things even worse and it all just devolved into an orgy of violence as they tried to hold onto power.

I wouldn't say Democratic Kampuchea was a good example of how evil communism is or anything, but it is a fantastic example of the failings of Marxism. As I've said in other threads Marx was profoundly mistaken and it has traditionally been the rural peasantry that is the revolutionary class and because nothing in Marxism is predicated on that being true everything kinda falls apart when a revolution actually happens.

Fair enough. I'm not an expert on the subject or anything, so I'm willing to take your word for it.

That said, I will gripe that I don't think it's even a failure of Marxism, really. At least, not this instance, specifically. I mean, the idea of jumping straight from a feudal-agrarian society to an industrialized socialist one isn't really Marx's thing. Regardless of anything, he was pretty adamant about the whole "stages of development" thing and how capitalism had to come before communism; skipping it wasn't really an option. The idea of skipping straight to Communism altogether is more of a Left Communist thing. I've actually seen many Marxists use this as an argument for why Marxism hasn't "really failed," because communist movements diverged heavily in regards to actually following this model of dialectical history. It's actually one of the better ones they have, though it hardly makes up for all the other ways in which Marxism completely falls flat, including your mention of the insistence on the proletariat as the "driving force of revolution" to the exclusion of all others. Maoism tried to correct this, though that obviously failed just as badly (if not worse).

[Kubra]

Part of the problem with socialism is the concept of the workers, who are the workers? You turn over everything to the workers and you end up with the teachers, engineers, and the middle class dying in the fields, and the managers being killed off. It begins with mass starvation, then a half way productive system.

Communism and socialism biggest failure is that it doesn't describe how you keep and develop people to manage the system when the workers take over. It is a huge failure. In nearly every system there is a concentration of wealth and skill among a few people. Determining who these people are going to be determines how your system is going to turn out. Wealth tends to accumulate to a few people statistically, and a few people tend to become more skilled than everyone else.

If you define the workers as the men and women who run the meat packing plants as the workers you are in trouble. Unskilled workers taking over everything has been shown to be a complete failure. How are you going to determine who and how people get educated and what do you do to change things so you don't have to kill all the teachers and engineers.

"Socialism" rarely had a shortage of teachers and engineers and that's kind a problem. I tell ya what, engineers really don't make good gerontocrats.

[Kubra]

Regardless of anything, he was pretty adamant about the whole "stages of development" thing and how capitalism had to come before communism; skipping it wasn't really an option.

Marx explicitly said "yeah you can skip no problem, this ain't Hegel". It's amazing how the words of soviet party men became the words of Marx.

[Byzconia]

Part of the problem with socialism is the concept of the workers, who are the workers? You turn over everything to the workers and you end up with the teachers, engineers, and the middle class dying in the fields, and the managers being killed off. It begins with mass starvation, then a half way productive system.

Communism and socialism biggest failure is that it doesn't describe how you keep and develop people to manage the system when the workers take over. It is a huge failure. In nearly every system there is a concentration of wealth and skill among a few people. Determining who these people are going to be determines how your system is going to turn out. Wealth tends to accumulate to a few people statistically, and a few people tend to become more skilled than everyone else.

If you define the workers as the men and women who run the meat packing plants as the workers you are in trouble. Unskilled workers taking over everything has been shown to be a complete failure. How are you going to determine who and how people get educated and what do you do to change things so you don't have to kill all the teachers and engineers.

"Socialism" rarely had a shortage of teachers and engineers and that's kind a problem. I tell ya what, engineers really don't make good gerontocrats.

This is true. In the Soviet Union's final years, over 80% of the Politburu were engineers.

Regardless of anything, he was pretty adamant about the whole "stages of development" thing and how capitalism had to come before communism; skipping it wasn't really an option.

Marx explicitly said "yeah you can skip no problem, this ain't Hegel". It's amazing how the words of soviet party men became the words of Marx.

Where did he say this?

[Kubra]

"Socialism" rarely had a shortage of teachers and engineers and that's kind a problem. I tell ya what, engineers really don't make good gerontocrats.

This is true. In the Soviet Union's final years, over 80% of the Politburu were engineers.

Marx explicitly said "yeah you can skip no problem, this ain't Hegel". It's amazing how the words of soviet party men became the words of Marx.

Where did he say this?

China currently has the same problem, and considering their clumsy foreign policy it's probably fair to say China's general development is in spite of those fellas instead of because of them.
In a letter to one Vera Zasulich, back when letters were posted in newspapers because people didn't have internet forums. Final draft merely says

In analysing the genesis of capitalist production, I said:

At the heart of the capitalist system is a complete separation of ... the producer from the means of production ... the expropriation of the agricultural producer is the basis of the whole process. Only in England has it been accomplished in a radical manner. ... But all the other countries of Western Europe are following the same course. (Capital, French edition, p. 315.)

The ‘historical inevitability’ of this course is therefore expressly restricted to the countries of Western Europe. The reason for this restriction is indicated in Ch. XXXII: ‘Private property, founded upon personal labour ... is supplanted by capitalist private property, which rests on exploitation of the labour of others, on wage­labour.’ (loc. cit., p. 340).

But in the earlier drafts he went as far as to say that the imposition of capitalist relations to agriculture was by and large bad, calling the English doing it in the east indies vandalism that drove the population backwards instead of forwards.
That aside, its important to note that this was no predictive. The thiiiiing with guys who read Hegel is they say "this was inevitable", not "this is inevitable". Past tense, see? The process of capitalist expropriation was something that was, rather than something that would also be with a 20 year road map. Also, it's a super useless of way of speaking of history and we moderns should never do it.

It's also contained in the Russian preface to the manifesto, which is super ironic considering who said "marx said this".

[Telconi]

Not real communism, eh?

Well, it isn't.

That's what makes it such a good example.

[Byzconia]

This is true. In the Soviet Union's final years, over 80% of the Politburu were engineers.


Where did he say this?

China currently has the same problem, and considering their clumsy foreign policy it's probably fair to say China's general development is in spite of those fellas instead of because of them.
In a letter to one Vera Zasulich, back when letters were posted in newspapers because people didn't have internet forums. Final draft merely says

In analysing the genesis of capitalist production, I said:

At the heart of the capitalist system is a complete separation of ... the producer from the means of production ... the expropriation of the agricultural producer is the basis of the whole process. Only in England has it been accomplished in a radical manner. ... But all the other countries of Western Europe are following the same course. (Capital, French edition, p. 315.)

The ‘historical inevitability’ of this course is therefore expressly restricted to the countries of Western Europe. The reason for this restriction is indicated in Ch. XXXII: ‘Private property, founded upon personal labour ... is supplanted by capitalist private property, which rests on exploitation of the labour of others, on wage­labour.’ (loc. cit., p. 340).

But in the earlier drafts he went as far as to say that the imposition of capitalist relations to agriculture was by and large bad, calling the English doing it in the east indies vandalism that drove the population backwards instead of forwards.
That aside, its important to note that this was no predictive. The thiiiiing with guys who read Hegel is they say "this was inevitable", not "this is inevitable". Past tense, see? The process of capitalist expropriation was something that was, rather than something that would also be with a 20 year road map. Also, it's a super useless of way of speaking of history and we moderns should never do it.

It's also contained in the Russian preface to the manifesto, which is super ironic considering who said "marx said this".

I mean, Marx's theories were specifically in regards to Western Europe anyway, so this isn't really Earth-shattering. The only thing it really changes is my argument about "This isn't Marx's fault this time" in regards to the Khmer Rouge's failures, but that's not really a point in his favor (though, granted, it's not a point against him, either--other than the one being taken away).

[Kubra]

China currently has the same problem, and considering their clumsy foreign policy it's probably fair to say China's general development is in spite of those fellas instead of because of them.
In a letter to one Vera Zasulich, back when letters were posted in newspapers because people didn't have internet forums. Final draft merely says

But in the earlier drafts he went as far as to say that the imposition of capitalist relations to agriculture was by and large bad, calling the English doing it in the east indies vandalism that drove the population backwards instead of forwards.
That aside, its important to note that this was no predictive. The thiiiiing with guys who read Hegel is they say "this was inevitable", not "this is inevitable". Past tense, see? The process of capitalist expropriation was something that was, rather than something that would also be with a 20 year road map. Also, it's a super useless of way of speaking of history and we moderns should never do it.

It's also contained in the Russian preface to the manifesto, which is super ironic considering who said "marx said this".

I mean, Marx's theories were specifically in regards to Western Europe anyway, so this isn't really Earth-shattering. The only thing it really changes is my argument about "This isn't Marx's fault this time" in regards to the Khmer Rouge's failures, but that's not really a point in his favor (though, granted, it's not a point against him, either--other than the one being taken away).

But it does change your mind on the whole "he was pretty adamant on the whole 'stages of development' " shtick, yeah?

[Byzconia]

I mean, Marx's theories were specifically in regards to Western Europe anyway, so this isn't really Earth-shattering. The only thing it really changes is my argument about "This isn't Marx's fault this time" in regards to the Khmer Rouge's failures, but that's not really a point in his favor (though, granted, it's not a point against him, either--other than the one being taken away).

But it does change your mind on the whole "he was pretty adamant on the whole 'stages of development' " shtick, yeah?

I mean...I guess? Not really sure why you'd want that, considering that now anytime a Marxist tries to make the argument that the communist regimes deviated from Marx by not sticking to his "stages of development" idea, instead of thinking, "That's a valid point," I'm just gonna think, "Well, that's just wrong." So, thanks for helping me realize I was giving Marxists too much credit, I guess.

[Nejii]

One thing I recently observed talking about capitalism, communism, and socialism (the big three if you will) is that it seems that all three are susceptible to one fatal human nature; greed. As much of a “no duh” as that may sound, I just have to point that out.

•Greedy Corrupt Capitalism: Corporate bureaucratic America.

•Greedy Corrupt Communism: Soviet Russia and it’s iron fisted regime. Particularly under Stalin.

•Greedy Corrupt Socialism: Kim Jung-un’ North Korea.


This of course goes back to “there is no perfect system” to quote several who have posted here. It’s all about the best overall option with minimal profligate tendency.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Part of the problem with socialism is the concept of the workers, who are the workers? You turn over everything to the workers and you end up with the teachers, engineers, and the middle class dying in the fields, and the managers being killed off. It begins with mass starvation, then a half way productive system.

Communism and socialism biggest failure is that it doesn't describe how you keep and develop people to manage the system when the workers take over. It is a huge failure. In nearly every system there is a concentration of wealth and skill among a few people. Determining who these people are going to be determines how your system is going to turn out. Wealth tends to accumulate to a few people statistically, and a few people tend to become more skilled than everyone else.

If you define the workers as the men and women who run the meat packing plants as the workers you are in trouble. Unskilled workers taking over everything has been shown to be a complete failure. How are you going to determine who and how people get educated and what do you do to change things so you don't have to kill all the teachers and engineers.

The issue is your view of the world doesn't describe the real world at all. Most of the jobs I've worked at are run by total idiots who can't make decisions at all, but the craze of the customers keeps them in business. The idea that a hierarchy of rich billionaires on top and everyone else on the bottom is natural isnt based in reality. These people aren't natural born leaders. This unnatural system just allows them to be, but take away their money and strip back the veil and you have at best a bunch of dipshits and at worst full on sociopaths.

[Eurasies]

One thing I recently observed talking about capitalism, communism, and socialism (the big three if you will) is that it seems that all three are susceptible to one fatal human nature; greed. As much of a “no duh” as that may sound, I just have to point that out.

•Greedy Corrupt Capitalism: Corporate bureaucratic America.

•Greedy Corrupt Communism: Soviet Russia and it’s iron fisted regime. Particularly under Stalin.

•Greedy Corrupt Socialism: Kim Jung-un’ North Korea.


This of course goes back to “there is no perfect system” to quote several who have posted here. It’s all about the best overall option with minimal profligate tendency.

That is why no socio-economic system will work TOTALLY, everyone has good things and bad things.

But humans are experts at ruining everything

[Nejii]

One thing I recently observed talking about capitalism, communism, and socialism (the big three if you will) is that it seems that all three are susceptible to one fatal human nature; greed. As much of a “no duh” as that may sound, I just have to point that out.

•Greedy Corrupt Capitalism: Corporate bureaucratic America.

•Greedy Corrupt Communism: Soviet Russia and it’s iron fisted regime. Particularly under Stalin.

•Greedy Corrupt Socialism: Kim Jung-un’ North Korea.


This of course goes back to “there is no perfect system” to quote several who have posted here. It’s all about the best overall option with minimal profligate tendency.

That is why no socio-economic system will work TOTALLY, everyone has good things and bad things.

But humans are experts at ruining everything

They really are.

[Kubra]

But it does change your mind on the whole "he was pretty adamant on the whole 'stages of development' " shtick, yeah?

I mean...I guess? Not really sure why you'd want that, considering that now anytime a Marxist tries to make the argument that the communist regimes deviated from Marx by not sticking to his "stages of development" idea, instead of thinking, "That's a valid point," I'm just gonna think, "Well, that's just wrong." So, thanks for helping me realize I was giving Marxists too much credit, I guess.

well yes, because it *is* wrong and those folks shouldn't get a pass.

[True Refuge]

Not going to get much out of this thread with an OP text like that, are we?

[Odreria]

Communism is never going to work. I favor a socialist system, but not necessarily a democratic one, at least not in the liberal sense. I also support reasonable restrictions on personal freedom.

[True Refuge]

Communism is never going to work. I favor a socialist system, but not necessarily a democratic one, at least not in the liberal sense. I also support reasonable restrictions on personal freedom.

Will the law of value apply in this socialist society?

[UniversalCommons]

You look at the countries with the highest standards of living, greatest happiness, and amounts of freedom and ask yourself how can I do that? How can we adjust our government to do the best for our citizens?

[Nejii]

Not going to get much out of this thread with an OP text like that, are we?

Looking at the diversity of opinions and the various debates and arguments I disagree.