Communism and Socialism megathread

[Republic of Coldwater]

China: How much did Mao change Marxist theory. He had a lot of formerly working class guys planning out an economy for him, setting goals and doing all sorts of things, and wasn't that different from what happened in the USSR, and guess what, stagnation followed, and the Chinese are much better off today than they were under Communism.

A lot. Mao based a lot of his theories off of Stalin, inadvertently perhaps, that their reigns were probably the worst things for their respective country.
But hey, you can always relate to how China possibly had the most relaxed gun laws in the world under Mao - didn't stop communist oppression under the traitor Deng Xiaoping, who westerners praise solely for his free market reforms... which either way didn't matter, since most of the heavy industry is still state-owned.

I'd also like to add, even though it is less relevant, that China's sudden slowdown is going to be catastrophic to developed nations. China's recently noted economic 'success' is only tied to its own possible economic capacity - the acquisition of capital (under Marxist definition) still applies.
I've met CHINESE SOCIALISTS IN CHINA who were opposed to the Communist Party, who felt they weren't doing enough to pursue Socialism and the end-goal at Communism.

Russia: Well, doesn't that prove that private companies are much better at giving the people basic necessities, as the state failed to do so?

That's questionable, given the 2 decades of economic downturn in Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. I thought free market reforms were meant to bring success to all?
Instead, we end with this weird paradox where Russia and the Ukraine are doing demonstrably bad (moreso the latter), but a country that kept its Soviet-era economic system (Belarus) is comparable to a country that switched entirely to the Free Market (Poland and the Baltic States)

Well it has been what, 20, 30 years since China liberalized, and it has only seen growth. China will slow down as it finishes industrialization, as what happened in virtually every other nation, but it is still much better off than it was before the liberalization. China would probably turn out like Japan, as it once was reliant on exporting, but a dwindling birth rate and a smaller, and highly educate workforce would only result in China turning to other places for manufacturing as it turns itself into a service economy, and one that would be high-tech, just like Japan.

I don't see anything about gun laws under Mao being liberalized, all I can see is that only hunters are allowed to own guns in China.



Keep in mind that from the 1980s onwards, the USSR begins to switch to Capitalism, and it saw tremendous growth.


Exponential growth after the liberalization in the 80s and 90s.

The empirical evidence clearly shows that even post-Communist states are faring better with Capitalism.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Its very interesting why many Communists lay so much emphasis upon who undertakes the revolution, but that is beside the point, the point being that the state cannot magically end scarcity, it is going to exist, we can't stop it.

Isn't scarcity invented by the free market, as an attempt to price an item based on demand?
Of course there isn't going to magically end scarcity, not while capitalism is about - the two systems are simply incompatible when operated on the same fucking planet!
Albert Einstein explores this paradox deeply in his thesis presented in "Why Socialism?". I recommend you read it, as it does address a lot of problems, including Hayek's expanded "Economic Calculation Problem" to a point.

No, it is formed by basic human nature. Scarcity is defined by unlimited human wants with limited resources, and switching to Communism doesn't mean that we will be able to accommodate for the unlimited human wants that exist in virtually everyone on this planet.

I skimmed through the Wikipedia article, and as much as I admire the scientific feats of the man, I disagree with him on economics. Capitalism won't always corrupt politicians, it could, but only through the state, as the state would give the politicians the freedom to be corrupted by money, but if the state controlled itself, or got rid of itself, we wouldn't have this issue. We would still have corrupt politicians in a Communist state, this time from competing industries asking for more support for their industry, and giving him/her some sort of incentive.

I would rather not dig deep into his messages, as it is overlapping with many debated here, but the point being that scarcity would exist in any system, and the state controlling the economy would only bring ruin and hasn't brought wonders that Capitalism has brought. Keep in mind that the West is so wealthy because of Capitalism, and places like Hong Kong and Singapore are wealthy because of Capitalism, and that North Korea and Communist China suffered because of Communism, and only when Deng Xiaoping liberalized the economy, and stop stifling private business did China become far more prosperous. .

[Constantinopolis]

Keep in mind that from the 1980s onwards, the USSR begins to switch to Capitalism, and it saw tremendous growth.

Wait, what? Are you even looking at the graph you posted? Did you not notice that enormous Depression in the 1990s, and how it took until 2006 just for the GDP of the ex-Soviet republics to get back to where it was in 1990?

Exponential growth after the liberalization in the 80s and 90s.

Yeah, except that there was exponential growth before liberalization, too. That entire graph is exponential, from 1950 to 2010. Do you not know what a standard exponential curve looks like? It looks like this:



You see that flatter part in the beginning? That's still exponential. The whole thing is exponential. It's the same function from start to finish. Nothing changes in the middle.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Keep in mind that from the 1980s onwards, the USSR begins to switch to Capitalism, and it saw tremendous growth.

Wait, what? Are you even looking at the graph you posted? Did you not notice that enormous Depression in the 1990s, and how it took until 2006 just for the GDP of the ex-Soviet republics to get back to where it was in 1990?

Exponential growth after the liberalization in the 80s and 90s.

Yeah, except that there was exponential growth before liberalization, too. That entire graph is exponential, from 1950 to 2010. Do you not know what a standard exponential curve looks like? It looks like this:



You see that flatter part in the beginning? That's still exponential. The whole thing is exponential. It's the same function from start to finish. Nothing changes in the middle.

Sure, it took some time for the former Soviet Republics to reach their former height, but guess what, they are now wealthier than they were back during the USSR, and some places like Moscow, if I recall correctly, have some $23,000 Dollar GDP/Capita.

Fair enough, I used the wrong terminology, but there is no doubt that China has seen unprecedented growth once the government stopped stifling private enterprise and innovation through a planned economy.

[Shigiel]

Those countries could hardly be called planned economies at all. The "plans" were constantly being changed to fit bureaucratic goals. In the case of the USSR, Lenin had (stupidly) introduced the New Economic Policy in 1921 which reintroduced capitalism and by the time Stalin ended it the revolution had already undergone a huge bureaucratic degeneration due to its isolation in one backward country. In China and North Korea, the parties were simply bureaucratic and not proletarian from the start. North Korea was also badly hurt by the war and economic sanctions, and now they're not even trying to call themselves communist.

Again, you're making assumptions about human behaviour. Humans want more, and more, and more under capitalism because "the ideas of a society are the ideas of its ruling class" and consumerism obviously benefits the ruling class of current society. In communism, a society based on co-operation and solidarity, this would not be the case.

Firstly, I'm sure that in a Communist society, people always want more, and new demands. I have relatives who have lived through Communist regimes, and even they wanted more during the time, and they didn't want to have the same, they wanted more. Whenever they can get an extra apple, or when they can get something more than the usual, they are very happy, and would prefer that to be the case.

North Korea and China, in the beginning, had proletarian governments. Working class people ran everything, and former landlords were killed, or ostracized by the working class.

Even if it was to fit some bureaucratic goal, does it mean that it isn't a centrally planned economy?

I have no doubt that people wanted more in "communist" régimes; my Yugoslav parents certainly did. But, like all the other countries that were meant to be communist, Yugoslavia was state capitalist. A new ruling class emerged there from the party, which grew detached from the working class.

North Korea and China were agrarian societies with bureaucratic parties that drew their support primarily from the peasantry. The peasantry were oppressed and all, but they were not a revolutionary class, and a country cannot have communism before it has capitalism. North Korea and China tried to do that, and now China has ended up with a really strange and brutal sort of capitalism and North Korea with Juche, which I don't even need to comment on.

The problem isn't that the economies of the URSS, China etc. were "planned" to fit bureaucratic goals (although in a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat this wouldn't happen), it's that these goals changed so often that the economy was ultimately guided by the not-so-invisible hand of the state bureaucracy rather than any sort of comprehensive plan.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Firstly, I'm sure that in a Communist society, people always want more, and new demands. I have relatives who have lived through Communist regimes, and even they wanted more during the time, and they didn't want to have the same, they wanted more. Whenever they can get an extra apple, or when they can get something more than the usual, they are very happy, and would prefer that to be the case.

North Korea and China, in the beginning, had proletarian governments. Working class people ran everything, and former landlords were killed, or ostracized by the working class.

Even if it was to fit some bureaucratic goal, does it mean that it isn't a centrally planned economy?

I have no doubt that people wanted more in "communist" régimes; my Yugoslav parents certainly did. But, like all the other countries that were meant to be communist, Yugoslavia was state capitalist. A new ruling class emerged there from the party, which grew detached from the working class.

North Korea and China were agrarian societies with bureaucratic parties that drew their support primarily from the peasantry. The peasantry were oppressed and all, but they were not a revolutionary class, and a country cannot have communism before it has capitalism. North Korea and China tried to do that, and now China has ended up with a really strange and brutal sort of capitalism and North Korea with Juche, which I don't even need to comment on.

The problem isn't that the economies of the URSS, China etc. were "planned" to fit bureaucratic goals (although in a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat this wouldn't happen), it's that these goals changed so often that the economy was ultimately guided by the not-so-invisible hand of the state bureaucracy rather than any sort of comprehensive plan.

State Capitalist sounds quite ironic, as Capitalism is the anthesis of the state undertaking commercial activity

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Regardless, I get what you mean, you mean that the Yugoslavian government had for-profit commercial activity, which I actually doubt, as far as I have read, that government has been mainly focused on non-for profit state-run industries. Sure, a new ruling class emerged, but that doesn't necessitate Capitalism.

You mean it weren't poor workers who revolted against the KMT and created a new government. Both Mao and Kim were from very poor backgrounds. Even so, China had collective farms, and NK still does, and China had them, and we must realize that the state itself, is a public, collective organization, and if it owns something, it might as well mean public, collective ownership, thus Communism.

Sure, the plans changed, but the economy was still controlled by the state, entirely, and plans are still plans. As much as they changed, in the end of the day, it is still planned.

[Constantinopolis]

Sure, it took some time for the former Soviet Republics to reach their former height, but guess what, they are now wealthier than they were back during the USSR

Uh, yes, because the USSR last existed in the 1980s, and now we are in 2015. Almost all the countries in the world - including the extremely poor and destitute ones - are better off in 2015 than they were in the 1980s. Obviously, if you've made any net progress at all over the past 25 years - and most countries do make at least some progress, no matter what system they have - then you're going to be better off today than in the 1980s.

The real question is, are the former Soviet Republics better off today than they would have been if they had continued with the Soviet system? The data strongly indicates that the answer is no. Even very low growth over the past 25 years - as long as it was steady - would have put them in a better position than having to recover from that giant 1990s Depression.

and some places like Moscow, if I recall correctly, have some $23,000 Dollar GDP/Capita.

Very true. Moscow is an island of wealth among an ocean of poverty. Welcome to capitalism.

Fair enough, I used the wrong terminology, but there is no doubt that China has seen unprecedented growth once the government stopped stifling private enterprise and innovation through a planned economy.

Yes, but China is also the only example of this. Every other country that switched from a planned economy to a market economy got hit with a massive economic downturn first, and then some recovered and some didn't.

Also, although China's growth rates since liberalization have been extremely high, they were very high to begin with, even before liberalization. China didn't go from zero growth to massive growth. It went from high growth to "how the hell is this even possible" growth. And although we call it "liberalization", the state had a massive role in it. Have you looked at China's investment rates as a percentage of GDP? They are off the charts. The amount of resources they are dedicating to building up heavy industry has reached Stalin-like levels. It's not a planned economy, but there is no doubt that the state is intentionally driving up investment to these heights.

[Ripoll]

I'm a free marketer, but not a rothbardian. Credit cycles existed before central banks did, it's human nature. Define "real wealth" please, because I assure you if you're answer is the gold standard and 100% reserve banking it's not the case.

So banks are dumb enough to make money out of thin air and possibly result in nobody loaning to them in the future, and potentially their collapse?

Real Wealth is something that actually exists, it is a representation of something, and with Fractional Banking, if I put, lets say $20 in a bank, and the bank undertakes fractional banking, they would loan out, lets say, $10 of it, effectively creating $30, as I still have the rights to the $20, and then I can buy things, and they would have the rights to that money, yet that same money would be spent, until we really have all of this artificial wealth that is unable to allow people to consume and return their loans on the same set of resources.

Yes, well actually banks make currency out of thin air there is a difference if you would go about that but moving on. There is no such thing as real wealth, but I believe your whole problem about this entire thing is believing that we should leave the natural economic system alone and never temper with it, which is completely false. Economics, is a human creation, it is all based off of trust. Currency only has worth because we make it out to have worth. It's funny how rothbardians think of economics as some pure magical wonderland predetermined to have laws set by God when in reality much of what we know to be true of human interaction has been made better when facilitated by state. Cities and bridges are carried out by private contractors, but it was the state that carried out and designed them.

[United Marxist Nations]

Wait, what? Are you even looking at the graph you posted? Did you not notice that enormous Depression in the 1990s, and how it took until 2006 just for the GDP of the ex-Soviet republics to get back to where it was in 1990?


Yeah, except that there was exponential growth before liberalization, too. That entire graph is exponential, from 1950 to 2010. Do you not know what a standard exponential curve looks like? It looks like this:

(Image)

You see that flatter part in the beginning? That's still exponential. The whole thing is exponential. It's the same function from start to finish. Nothing changes in the middle.

Sure, it took some time for the former Soviet Republics to reach their former height, but guess what, they are now wealthier than they were back during the USSR, and some places like Moscow, if I recall correctly, have some $23,000 Dollar GDP/Capita.

Fair enough, I used the wrong terminology, but there is no doubt that China has seen unprecedented growth once the government stopped stifling private enterprise and innovation through a planned economy.

Actually, the USSR's GDP (real, not nominal) in 1989 was significantly larger than that of the former USSR today.

EDIT:

USSR economy in 1989: $2.6595 trillion

Adjusted for inflation: $5.08 trillion


Current CIS GDP: $2,906.944 billion (2.9 trillion)
+Baltic States: $171.110 billion

Total former USSR: $3.071 trillion

[Vashtanaraada]

finally, some bloody communists and socialists on this thread!

[Zunkwentania]

finally, some bloody communists and socialists on this thread!

There weren't any?

[Vashtanaraada]

finally, some bloody communists and socialists on this thread!

There weren't any?

there was for a while a neo-liberal, a libertarian and a dude i didn't know whose ideology was!

[Zunkwentania]

There weren't any?

there was for a while a neo-liberal, a libertarian and a dude i didn't know whose ideology was!

I mean, just a few posts before UMN, there was Constantinopolis.

[Vashtanaraada]

there was for a while a neo-liberal, a libertarian and a dude i didn't know whose ideology was!

I mean, just a few posts before UMN, there was Constantinopolis.

previous page though

[Zunkwentania]

Sure, it took some time for the former Soviet Republics to reach their former height, but guess what, they are now wealthier than they were back during the USSR

Uh, yes, because the USSR last existed in the 1980s, and now we are in 2015. Almost all the countries in the world - including the extremely poor and destitute ones - are better off in 2015 than they were in the 1980s. Obviously, if you've made any net progress at all over the past 25 years - and most countries do make at least some progress, no matter what system they have - then you're going to be better off today than in the 1980s.

The real question is, are the former Soviet Republics better off today than they would have been if they had continued with the Soviet system? The data strongly indicates that the answer is no. Even very low growth over the past 25 years - as long as it was steady - would have put them in a better position than having to recover from that giant 1990s Depression.

and some places like Moscow, if I recall correctly, have some $23,000 Dollar GDP/Capita.

Very true. Moscow is an island of wealth among an ocean of poverty. Welcome to capitalism.

Fair enough, I used the wrong terminology, but there is no doubt that China has seen unprecedented growth once the government stopped stifling private enterprise and innovation through a planned economy.

Yes, but China is also the only example of this. Every other country that switched from a planned economy to a market economy got hit with a massive economic downturn first, and then some recovered and some didn't.

Also, although China's growth rates since liberalization have been extremely high, they were very high to begin with, even before liberalization. China didn't go from zero growth to massive growth. It went from high growth to "how the hell is this even possible" growth. And although we call it "liberalization", the state had a massive role in it. Have you looked at China's investment rates as a percentage of GDP? They are off the charts. The amount of resources they are dedicating to building up heavy industry has reached Stalin-like levels. It's not a planned economy, but there is no doubt that the state is intentionally driving up investment to these heights.

Nope. That was on this page.

[Arkolon]

This isn't necessarily true. Business cycles can be independent from monetary policy-- although monetary policy can affect the size and scope of a business cycle. Look at the Kitchin cycle, or even the Kondratiev wave, for why and how business cycles occur.

Kitchin Cycle: Not very likely, as time lags don't take up enough time to explain why some business cycles are very long-term

The Kitchin cycle is a short-term business cycle (specifically about 3-5 years). The Kondratiev wave explains longer-term business cycles.

K-Wave, well, I see some wisdom in it, as it could explain why some periods have shorter and longer periods of growth, but honestly, we do not need to see specific sector growth to see a strong economy, or to see a "boom", as it could be small amounts of growth in numerous sectors that improve the economy and overall do good for the economy.

What?

Also, it's got far more wisdom than the Austrian business cycle theory. I mean, come on, if you're assuming a praxeological approach to economics, which runs common in Austrian economics, why are economic agents suddenly irrational enough to borrow funny money, doctored by the state? Maybe it could happen once or twice, sure, but a repetitive, perpetual business cycle? No way, even by Austrian standards. It also fails to explain business cycles in a time before central banks.

[Conscentia]

So... Communists of the thread - what do you propose as the new means of organising social labour? What would you like to see replace money?

Money wouldn't be necessary in a post-scarcity economy. Why would you want to replace money with anything?

Who said anything about a post-scarcity economy?

[Arkolon]

Money wouldn't be necessary in a post-scarcity economy. Why would you want to replace money with anything?

Who said anything about a post-scarcity economy.

Socialism as an ideology. It's step-1 in establishing a socialist society.

[Conscentia]

Who said anything about a post-scarcity economy.

Socialism as an ideology. It's step-1 in establishing a socialist society.

You are mistaken.

[Arkolon]

Still a very long shot to try and pin a 21st-century housing bubble on a Cold War British Prime Minister.

Problems run deep my friend, she has some responsibility

Yeah, no. Even Monetarism has nothing to do (at all) with the American housing bubble that caused the credit crunch.

[Arkolon]

Socialism as an ideology. It's step-1 in establishing a socialist society.

You are mistaken.

If you don't have post-scarcity, you cannot have equality in material position. The socialists, as well as communists for that matter, of this thread have already agreed with me.

[Conscentia]

You are mistaken.

If you don't have post-scarcity, you cannot have equality in material position. The socialists, as well as communists for that matter, of this thread have already agreed with me.

Not all socialists, not even all communists, desire equality of outcome.

[Arkolon]

If you don't have post-scarcity, you cannot have equality in material position. The socialists, as well as communists for that matter, of this thread have already agreed with me.

Not all socialists, not even all communists, desire equality of outcome.

Market socialism would require money to trade goods, or put it in a communal 'take-what-you-need' pile. Communism, as a classless, moneyless, stateless society wouldn't need money because all communist economics require post-scarcity. You cannot have communism with scarcity. Scarcity is the reason we have capitalism; scarcity is the reason communists dislike capitalism.

[Conscentia]

Not all socialists, not even all communists, desire equality of outcome.

Market socialism would require money to trade goods, or put it in a communal 'take-what-you-need' pile. Communism, as a classless, moneyless, stateless society wouldn't need money because all communist economics require post-scarcity. You cannot have communism with scarcity. Scarcity is the reason we have capitalism; scarcity is the reason communists dislike capitalism.

Says who?

[Ripoll]

Market socialism would require money to trade goods, or put it in a communal 'take-what-you-need' pile. Communism, as a classless, moneyless, stateless society wouldn't need money because all communist economics require post-scarcity. You cannot have communism with scarcity. Scarcity is the reason we have capitalism; scarcity is the reason communists dislike capitalism.

Says who?

communists