Anti Capitalist Discussion Thread I: Seize the toothbrushes!

[Dejanic]

I've essentially become a supporter of market socialism, in the manner that John Stuart Mill described and advocated for: “The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves.”

Sounds about right.

Now all you need to do is shed that bizarre and disastrous foreign policy.

And then shed Market Socialism in favour of real Socialism (which removes Capitalist relations to exchange and distribution).

I think Market Socialism is a good step for people who are becoming accustomed to Anti-Capitalist politics; it's like the final stage of Left Capitalism for a lot of Libs/Soc Dems, the stage in which many go through before they accept true Socialism/Communism. The weak will falter and go back to Sweden, the strong will move forward to better, redder politics.

[Dejanic]

Now all you need to do is shed that bizarre and disastrous foreign policy.

Sorry, posting pictures of genitalia is against the rules of this forum.

[Cekoviu]

Can socdems participate?

[Dejanic]

Can socdems participate?

Anyone can post.

But you're not an anti-cap, as long as you accept that and don't think Sweden is Socialist you won't go in the gulag.

Unless you're a Soc Dem in the traditional, revolutionary sense? Like Lenin. If which, I am also a Social Democrat.

[Oil exporting People]

Led the Soviet Union at the height of its power, major Soviet military expansions, economic prosperity, etc.

Completely fucked the economy with the Brezhnev stagnation

[Aillyria]

Now all you need to do is shed that bizarre and disastrous foreign policy.

And then shed Market Socialism in favour of real Socialism (which removes Capitalist relations to exchange and distribution).

I think Market Socialism is a good step for people who are becoming accustomed to Anti-Capitalist politics; it's like the final stage of Left Capitalism for a lot of Libs/Soc Dems, the stage in which many go through before they accept true Socialism/Communism. The weak will falter and go back to Sweden, the strong will move forward to better, redder politics.

I don't agree with the notion that non-market socialism is necessarily "true socialism", or that their should be a trend towards it. My evolution as a socialist was the reverse of what you describe, I was a marxist-leninist and moved towards market-syndicalism over the years (where I am now). I think market socialism is the most fitting for civilization in its current form as a complex industrial society. Communism and other non-market socialist varieties cannot be applied to modern nationstates successfully.

[Dejanic]

I'm a Marxist so from the Marxian perspective Market Socialism is definitely not Socialism, for several reasons. Private exchange, private distribution, wage Labour, etc all exist under Market Socialism. The "control" of organisations may change, but the results do not and the inner workings of the mode of production are thoroughly Capitalist through and through. It's democratic Capitalism effectively; certainly superior to what we have now, but Capitalist relations are not abolished. Even from a Capitalist perspective this could be argued, as co-ops exist now and a society full of co-ops as opposed to private businesses wouldn't be radically different. I've never seen a convincing response to this from Market Socialists, as it's largely clear Market Socialism represents Capitalist more so than Socialism.

I prefer Socialism, which is based around social ownership, distribution and exchange; as a transition to the development of an eventual Communist society (though the latter I see as something much further down the line, and you don't necessarily have to believe in Communism to be a Socialist). Whether that transitional Socialist state is of a more centralised or decentralised or Anarchist nature is the question that plagues the revolutionary Left. Does the question as to whether a market and profit based economic system with commodity exchange constitute Socialism plague it? It shouldn't, as the answer is obvious IMO.

Like I said, I don't spit on Market Socialists because most of the time I find they're individuals who are new to Leftism. It's often a phase from my experience. I respect your experience but obviously disagree with your analysis.

I also think there'd be certain situations where a Market "Socialist" model could be used as a transition to a planned Socialist economy, perhaps in a country with low productive forces.

[Dejanic]

I'll leave you all with some tasty anti-Socialist propaganda as I go to bed.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Led the Soviet Union at the height of its power, major Soviet military expansions, economic prosperity, etc.

Completely fucked the economy with the Brezhnev stagnation

It was Khrushchev that ruined the economy by destroying Soviet agriculture.

[Oil exporting People]

It was Khrushchev that ruined the economy by destroying Soviet agriculture.

Except for the fact the stagnation was noted for the decline in industrial growth rates.

[Major-Tom]

Completely fucked the economy with the Brezhnev stagnation

It was Khrushchev that ruined the economy by destroying Soviet agriculture.

It was marxism leninism that ruined the economy.

[Nova Anglicana]

marxist =/= democratic socialist

Yes, I'm well aware that there are non-Marxist socialists.

Genuine question for Americans. Where did the idea that Socialism=Taxes and public spending come from? Because it seems like many from both sides of the political spectrum in the US don't understand what Socialism is and think that Sweden is Socialist. Is it just a misunderstanding or is this actually taught in college Politics classes?

As an American and a teacher, I try to differentiate between social democracy and socialism in my classes. Some teachers just don't know and some don't care or don't try. I would say it's a mix of ignorance and actual belief.

I would describe myself as broadly anti-consumerist and anti-"vulture capitalism". I have no love for the buy, buy, buy, spend, spend, spend, culture that pervades many countries. Stuff is useful, but I already have too much of it for my own good, so why do we need to rush out and buy everything new and shiny?

I wouldn't describe myself as a capitalist or a socialist. I'm anti-capitalist to the extent that I abhor Wall Street money-changers who suck the profit out of enterprises without contributing anything or saving jobs (Good example here). I think the way we currently do things is cruel. However, I don't advocate for complete government or social ownership of the means of production and I support private property. I'm generally supportive of things like co-operatively owned businesses and worker representation on the boards of corporations.

So, I'm dissatisfied with some of the ways we do things, but not interested in the overthrow of capitalism, as it generally does a good job of creating wealth. Just my thoughts, neither anti-capitalist nor pro-capitalist

.

I agree wholeheartedly with this gent. Basically said what I was too fatigued to say.

Thanks. It's been quite interesting to follow your political evolution from Liberty and Linguistics to your current form.

You should look into degrowth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth

I hope you all live to ripe old age in good health so you can demand economic growth to pay for your pensions

Not really into degrowth, my primitivist friend. Economic growth is necessary to give everyone a better standard of living. I just object to buying stuff being so blatant and in-your-face. Sustainable, well-distributed growth that reduces income inequality and doesn't put additional pressure on our planet in terms of carbon emissions/fossil fuel usage.

[Kubra]

Completely fucked the economy with the Brezhnev stagnation

It was Khrushchev that ruined the economy by destroying Soviet agriculture.

Leaving it as it was would not have solved stagnant agricultural productive. He at least get's an A for effort, which is more than brezhnev gets ("fuck it, idk, let's just buy food with oil and pepsi with a surplus fleet")

[The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom]

Capitalism works. It functions better than anything else in its ability to channel resources into the most productive commercial activities. A million pairs of entrepreneur eyes and ears, each with a vested interest in the well-being of his business (= wallet) will outperform any socialist bureau in creating wealth. I don't know how to say this elegantly, using techno-talk and stuff, but it's true. The total absence of North Korean participants and dismal presence of Cubans on these forums is proof enough.

That said, my singular reservation about capitalist systems/societies isn't whether they work, but whether they will bear good fruits; in that regard, it is justifiably the worst option. (MAT 6:24, LK 16:13)

[Trotskylvania]

Capitalism works. It functions better than anything else in its ability to channel resources into the most productive commercial activities. A million pairs of entrepreneur eyes and ears, each with a vested interest in the well-being of his business (= wallet) will outperform any socialist bureau in creating wealth. I don't know how to say this elegantly, using techno-talk and stuff, but it's true. The total absence of North Korean participants and dismal presence of Cubans on these forums is proof enough.

That said, my singular reservation about capitalist systems/societies isn't whether they work, but whether they will bear good fruits; in that regard, it is justifiably the worst option. (MAT 6:24, LK 16:13)

Cuba and North Korea are fully capitalist political economies.

Generalized commodity production, class property, wage labor, and thus all the exploitation and alienation entailed in the value form, continue to exist in both states.

[What R Ye Doin in Muh Swaomp]

Dude capitalism is not great but your replacements are a bit worse. Besides I like money and don't want anyone bothering me.

[The Grene Knyght]

It was Khrushchev that ruined the economy by destroying Soviet agriculture.

It was marxism leninism that ruined the economy.

Ah yes. Because the econmoy under the tsar was just amazing...

[Dejanic]

The economy under the Tsars pre 1917 was poorer than Western Europe was during the middle ages. And had lower living standards than most of sub saharah Africa.

The economic and industrial gains under the USSR are undeniable; the biggest issues were the lack of democracy within the economic structures (all power to the soviets, not the bureaucrats) which was consolidated after the death of Lenin; and the poor foreign policy which focused on the consolidation of existing power rather than the spread of Socialism.

[Cekoviu]

Can socdems participate?

Anyone can post.

But you're not an anti-cap, as long as you accept that and don't think Sweden is Socialist you won't go in the gulag.

Unless you're a Soc Dem in the traditional, revolutionary sense? Like Lenin. If which, I am also a Social Democrat.

Oh, yeah, I support capitalism. I'm just here for the memes.

[Dejanic]

[Petrolheadia]

The economy under the Tsars pre 1917 was poorer than Western Europe was during the middle ages. And had lower living standards than most of sub saharah Africa.

Not really.

According to Angus Maddison's findings - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... t_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#1–2008_(Maddison)
, 1913 Russia's GDP ($1488) was around the level of 1989's Africa ($1444) or 1870's Italy ($1499), and was far from late 15th century Europe's ($771).

Though to be fair, the 1989 USSR's GDP per capita is closer in percentage terms to the American and West European ones than 1913 Russia's.

[The Grene Knyght]

The economy under the Tsars pre 1917 was poorer than Western Europe was during the middle ages. And had lower living standards than most of sub saharah Africa.

Not really.

According to Angus Maddison's findings - [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#1–2008_(Maddison)[/url]
, 1913 Russia's GDP ($1488) was around the level of 1989's Africa ($1444) or 1870's Italy ($1499), and was far from late 15th century Europe's ($771).

Though to be fair, the 1989 USSR's GDP per capita is closer in percentage terms to the American and West European ones than 1913 Russia's.

You seem pretty blatant in your cherry picking there, considering you fail to note the numerous criticisms on those numbers (the section immediately afterwards, for example, offers an amendment of the numbers with the GDP per capita of 1500AD Europe at double what Maddison proposed).

I mean, I don't even know if what Dejanic said was true, but what you posted far from disproves it. Especially since you're only using GDP per capita.

[Community Values]

The economy under the Tsars pre 1917 was poorer than Western Europe was during the middle ages. And had lower living standards than most of sub saharah Africa.

The economic and industrial gains under the USSR are undeniable; the biggest issues were the lack of democracy within the economic structures (all power to the soviets, not the bureaucrats) which was consolidated after the death of Lenin; and the poor foreign policy which focused on the consolidation of existing power rather than the spread of Socialism.

Would those economic gains not happen under a capitalist or tsarist regime?

[Orostan]

The economy under the Tsars pre 1917 was poorer than Western Europe was during the middle ages. And had lower living standards than most of sub saharah Africa.

The economic and industrial gains under the USSR are undeniable; the biggest issues were the lack of democracy within the economic structures (all power to the soviets, not the bureaucrats) which was consolidated after the death of Lenin; and the poor foreign policy which focused on the consolidation of existing power rather than the spread of Socialism.

Would those economic gains not happen under a capitalist or tsarist regime?

Probably not. I doubt a Capitalist Russia would've been able to have any "good" economic circumstances after WWII.

[Collatis]

Would those economic gains not happen under a capitalist or tsarist regime?

Probably not. I doubt a Capitalist Russia would’ve been able to have any “good” economic circumstances after WWII.

A capitalist Russia surely would have accepted Marshall Plan aid, however.