Well, the OP is a resident of China who referred to it as a “Socialist State.”
I could have posted links to a number of sources that provide detailed information as to why the above is not true, but I choose the CIA World Factbook, because it’s an “acceptable” source for those who lean politically “right.” cia.gov/library/publication … os/ch.html
As for North Korea? You bet, a bunch of lunny tunes. Indeed, the first hereditary “Communist State,” although not in a million years do they meet the definitions of Communism.
Totalitarianism has it’s own internal logic and momentum. After a while, the economic system really doesn’t matter. When I was younger, I participated in arguments as to who was worse, Stalin or Hitler - Does it really matter?
Stalin himself provided the answer to that kind of “debate.”
“One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.”
It’s not impossible to learn something about China. I just read a great book that gives a glimpse of modern China: Oracle Bones by Peter Hessler. I wouldn’t call China capitalist. I’m not sure what it is though.
People choosing what they interests them as opposed to what is good for them makes as much sense as giving a child candy because it wants it, therefore it must be good. Well being doesn’t necessarily entail desire. A large number of ‘intellectuals’ ridicule the public for their lack of interest in intellect. What good is intellect? Depends on the purpose of your government. Capitalism is only superior because it is the natural way of life, give me this I’ll give you that no questions asked. Socialism brings a bit of human intelligence into the basic equation and if you really insist, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist government. Honestly the only people I’ve ever met that are so high up on their horses about capitalism are Americans who’ve never experienced anything outside their borders and equate economical success with capitalism. There’s plenty of poor capitalist nations in the world, most of them are. Capitalism, as well as socialism, only succeeds with industrialism and industrialism is independent of both. In either case, a ‘lower class’ suffers.
Pure socialism is high maintenance and improbable. Pure capitalism is probable and makes for a self-serving oligarchy. A mix is needed either way. Puritanism is just a passion, not a logical conclusion.
Well, the purpose of communism is to eliminate class, and hence class struggle. Obviously that never happened in any so called “communist” state. Socialism tries to ease class struggle but not eliminate it. Capitalism thrives on class struggle
Yea but the person claimed to be from China , so one needs to give leeway for language barriers as stated earlier there is always confusion between the economic names and political names. ( This would be the first time I ever saw a person on the boards claiming to be from China , come to think of it. Have you ever met anyone from China or in China maybe on the boards?) I was leaning that the person was looking at economics rather than political. Socialism is the economic, Communism is the political,right? Thats what I seem to recall from way back in my school days… if the person ever makes it back we can ask which they meant.
Yea, sadly Stalin sort of nailed that one. So do you think he was trying to justify himself in order to ease his mind or the public’s ? We do know that if one becomes immersed in death it will make the person rather immune to the normal social beliefs and attitudes. This does happen on a country wide scale it seems. Look at the middle east for example.
Well, it’s a confusing topic since the words of have changed meaning since they were first established. Really both are social and economic in nature. Marx envisioned a temporary transitional totalitarianism needed to move between capitalism and true communism. True socialism as defined by most today is really the final stages of the communism envisioned by Marx. And communism as defined today has come to mean that transitional totalitarianism. Since no state has ever made it all the way to the final state now described as true socialism, it remains only an ideal. Many states have started by moving to the totalitarianism, but I think Marx underestimated the difficulty people would have giving up the power they gained in that transitional state
China “claims” to be a Socialist State. Is this claim true? The CIA fact book seems to disprove it. They are privatising industries ASAP -
Well, to live in a “real” Communist system, you would have no formal government.
Like most dictators, he not only fooled his people, but from time to time fooled himself. One has to remember that his FIRST victims were the “Old Bolshiviks.”
I remember a recent interview with Hussein, in which he was asked about his orders to murder the entire population of a small town, where an assassination attempt took place. What popped out of his mouth was, “they were all criminals and deserved it” (not an exact quote, but close enough) What does this tell us about the mentality of dictators?
The human mind is a facinating organ, and we can all make ours jump through hoops. Put yourself in the place of a person in a volatile situation, where hard decisions are required.
It becomes easy to go from hard decisions, to cynical decisions to saying “statistics…”
The beauty of our system of government is that there are at least supposed to be checks and balances that prevent the accumulation of that kind of power.
Note how many of US are ready to dump these restrictions. So then, what of a country with no such traditions, and no such checks and balances?
It’s not Capitalism or Socialism - It is the ability to maintain an open society, where we can happily call each other names, curse Bush, or curse Hillary, damn the Democrats or damn the Republicans, or blame everrything on the Vegetarians, and yet, stay out of jail.
To compare great things to small, we have EZ-pass in New York. So some genius came up with the idea of forcing people to switch to ez-pass by eliminating all but one toll booth that collected cash. Worth a shot was the thinking.
Well, traffic backed up for a mile down the road, and NO ONE could get through. Took them a year to add some cash booths…
So some bureaucrat in the Soviet Union comes up with an idea to “help” farmers. Turns out to be stupid and impractical? So who did they blame? Why the victims (pardon me, the farmers).
Since there are no free organs of expression, then these farmers become “wreckers,” traitors," etc. Same thing happened in the Cultural Revolution in China.
Why not? What was wrong with this “perfect” idea? Couldn’t be the bureaucrats fault?
You bet, Marx did under estimate how human nature responds - So while I call myself a Marxist, I also believe in real democracy. Any system that I advocate MUST be able to be “over thrown” by a simple vote, or it inevitably become a dictatorship.
Good intentions are no where near enough. It’s not so much that we are corruptible, it’s just that we hate to admit errors, and we love to find someone to “blame” when things go wrong.
the capitalist system will eventually destroy itself
anw rouzbeh is well to observe the traces of socialism in nearly all the developed capitalist countries( except america), that is that concessions were forced to be given to the proletariat
Yarrr matey, the welfare system was the most obvious example. Even America has these socialist policies to varying degrees but people are so paranoid about being “anti-american” that they refuse any possibilty of new ideas. America is and always has been too isolationist for its own good, at least in politics, if not necessarily in economics.
Well communism was supposed to happen to industrial countries. I don’t think any of the ex-communist nations were industrial at the time of their revolutions. You can take communism and say it’s never been implemented or you can take it to say that the industrialized capitalist system with socialist influences is stable enough not to allow for a real revolution based on ideals and promises. Depends which side of the coin you look at, but your beliefs are yours to have. Capitalism thrives on success in supply and demand. You can’t make a good industry based on a public that doesn’t have the resources to spend alot on everything, hence the poverty of third world nations. Communism isn’t going to fix poverty, but when there’s already a successful capitalist system, it promises to minimize income disparity based virtually on ‘who deserves it’ and their value in society. The criteria are a bit vague; but as a member of the public I agree with moderate socialism after the European example, but I have little faith in the possibility and ability of communism to deliver its promises wholly.
People choosing what they interests them as opposed to what is good for them makes as much sense as giving a child candy because it wants it, therefore it must be good. Well being doesn't necessarily entail desire.
You’re assuming wrongly that the adult population act like children and have no rational thought. I applied my “good” to entertainment/art, surely if you like art it is good. By forcing people what to think, you are destroying their ability to think. Society can be greatly beneficial to the individual because of mutual protection, division of labor, and economies of scale. But it is only beneficial to the extent that the individual is still free to act and survive according to his own reason. I would go along with Mill however that anyone who is not a child ( under 18 in the UK ) or mentally handicapped ( below 80 IQ ) should be allowed to what they want if they hurt no one else. It might not be “good” for them, it might kill them; I am not God and so is no one else… Morals are not absolute.
Then its OK that the Socialists do it too? What’s your point?
And that is why I stated earlier Gov’ts look great on paper but add humans and it goes downhill. Our minds find loopholes and cut corners and all sorts of intricate solutions to placate our feral hunter gathering instincts. We doom society by our individual instincts that hide below our surface civilized veneer. This is painfully evident even in our children. The cruelest humans are most often children. They can also work their minds to find ways to do things they are not supposed to. At 3 yrs old our son was an adept at loopholes, it about drove us crazy. Tell him not to paint on walls, he would draw, tell him not to paint or draw he would flick paint at it. Tell him not to damage the walls and he would hurl playdoh at it till it stuck.
His little brain found loopholes so that technically he was never doing wrong, he did not disobey. I learned to be very thorough with my wording and still he managed to do loopholes. He drove his teachers nuts doing this at school.
So if a mere child can cause havoc and hell. Adults can do much worse and still stay within boundries set. This makes Economics and Gov’ts very suceptable to us. A Utopian society could never suit the human individual no matter how much we try to become socially civilized at least not until our feral instincts disappear if ever. There will always be those that have no problem climbing over others and hurting them, to grab that brass ring. But is this always a bad thing? No I don’t think so. Those types have forced humanes to become more humane to think in broader words thoughts and ways. Evil can create good.
Stalin may have done a disservice but, he did cause some improvements. Hitler was evil to the core IMO but, the man did bring about social changes for the good of the world. We teeter and totter with good and bad. Good works or intentions can cause evil and visa versa. Perhaps a long distant future generation will find the balance.
communism and socialism is supposed to be the answer to poverty when the country is industrialized to a point that it can completely sustain itself---- (depends how you look at it, that is a bit of a leninist outlook on the occurence of socialism). that’s why, as i’ve mentioned countless times in our heated beer discussions, is that “communism” never has occured and especially not in the supposed communist countries like Rwanda
Alright then, I’ll give you the example of diabetes. People with diabetes will eat chocolate even though it could very well kill them. Old men take viagra even though the increased blood pressure could very well kill them. People are not rational creatures, rationality is a product of instinct. If you’re going to make things that hurt the general public illegal, you need to ban alcohol, beauty products in public, even sexy women and rich people. You could very well convert to islam. Alcohol will hurt the public because it will result in varying degrees of aggression that would’ve been absent otherwise. Sexy women will result in rape and rich people will result in thievery. As you said, morals are not absolute, which do you want to live by?
You’ve taken something out of context and asked for an explanation. “A large number of ‘intellectuals’ ridicule the public for their lack of interest in intellect. What good is intellect? Depends on the purpose of your government. Capitalism is only superior because it is the natural way of life, give me this I’ll give you that no questions asked.” Intellect is useless to capitalism because it discourages blind consumerism. I think the users of this forum alone have made that quite clear. Politics is economics. The only reason intellect is encouraged is because it allows for innovation and new markets. Intellect, however, is a natural product of socialism. University educated multilingual beggars in Russia should be evidence enough. America isn’t successful because it is capitalist, it is successful because it is industrialist. Is industrialism a product of capitalism? I think once again Russia will prove you wrong. I’ve already mentioned that a group of people will generally suffer either way but generally there’s less disparity. Industrialism isn’t a product of capitalism, it’s a spontaneous product of administration and possibility. For example, English socialism vs American consumerism has shown that Harvard with 35billion dollars isn’t much better off than Oxford and Cambridge in a country all the universities of which have less than a single university’s budget.
We’ll have more time to discuss that when you get here
A three year old can do nothing but act like a three year old. A three year old can only make a mess, and is physically incapable of cleaning up after themselves, or even appreciating the concept…
Nice to be three…
But as we grow up we learn that we have to clean up the messes we make. A wise society and wise parents do that.
You might be interested in knowing that the Founders of the US completely agreed with Marx that Government is always an oppressing force. Their solution to this problem was a government at odds with itself. Marxists decided that the best solution was to to away with government completely.
I agree with both groups…
Well, it’s actually a difficult debate - The only, and I mean the only thing we can give to Stalin in this kind of debate, is that his society had a built in contradiction of demanding democracy, equal rights, human dignity, etc, etc. When the contradiction between the Soviet Reality and the Soviet promise became to great the entire system fell apart.
Whereas if Hitler had won WW II, hundreds of millions would have been murdered, slavery and genocide would be the norm.
But in practical terms - What’s the difference? “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
If we step back and put aside the human cost (and I for one do not think that is either “fair” or possible) then Stalins greatest evil was giving communism a bad name. Setting an example for other revolutionary regimes. Turning the ideal of a classless, egalitarian society into a vicious buearocracy, where those who got the furthest were those who learned to be the toadies to the “Party.”
NB. Marx predicted that the Capitalist class would increase the poverty in society, concentrating more and more wealth into their own hands.
This didn’t occur. Back in the 1880’s Bismark, the German Prime Minister, led the way in “Stealing Socialisms thunder.”
Legalised Unions, Social Security, unemployment insurance, and an entire social safety net were the result. His example was copied by the rest of industrial Europe and eventually the United States. While Capitalists remained wealthy, some of this wealth trickled down to the mass of people.
In essense we were all “bought off,” and while Capitalism thrived, people who were ready to word hard, thrived as well. Indeed, Capitalism and Capitalists discovered that they could make MORE money if there was a healthy middle class, and if not a middle class in the Marxist sense, a middle class in the economic sense.
Well, these reforms, as Bismark himself stated it clearly, were to remove the underpinnings of Socialist theory. And it worked. And all of us DID benefit.
But there is no longer a socialist or communist threat. Capitalists are once again marching to the drums of pure greed. NAFTA, the WTO, etc, allow some Capitalists to take their money and go hunt for cheap labor and labor without Unions, health restrictions etc. Those Capitalists who think this is short sighted, have no choice if they want to stay in business, but do the same.
The laws that allow this, the laws that are changing the social saftey net from rights into charity are being pushed by extreme ideologues who regard the refors started by Bismark, and carried thorugh over the next century as detrimental to the “Free Market.”
The Sub-Prime Mortgage mess? Illegal up until Reagan. The export of entire industries and the end of good paying jobs for semi-skilled and even skilled workers? Gone since Clinton was able to push through Nafta.
Marx’s prediction is now starting to come true. There is no fear of Socialism or Communism haunting the Capitalist Class. Rooosevelt and his Capitalist buddies were ALSO humanitarians who thought that creating a middle income middle class, was not only good economically, but good to build a humanitarian society.
The Republican Party is now the party of those who want us to return to the days of the Free Market of the 19th century - The Democrats have Capitalists who realise that those good old days, never existed in the first place, and sure as hell cannot exist today.
But I doubt if the Democrats understand the difference between “rights” and “charity.”
The VA is in the process of telling Veterans that they have no right to benefits if they make more than a certain amount of money - This means that a veteran has no Right to these benefits, they are a “charity.”
From the fifites to now this has been a steady march of turning rights into charity. And after all, if a program is a right, it cannot be taken away, while a charity? Charities come and go…
All of this in total, is showing Marx to have been right all along.
Now it’s up to the leftists not to blow it by advocating dictatorship.
She could be rational and know that she will die but decides eating chocolate is more important, her choice. Could be she is fully unaware though ingnorance that eating chocolate will kill her. I use to think like you too. But can an irrational man do so much in terms of maths and sciences, maybe but I doubt it.
You have a very low image of the human race. Rape is not the result of sexy women and you are more likely to be a thief if you are poor.
I guess as a victim of my culture, I lived by the UK’s morals mixed in with my own Millian version and morals from my history. Very few people live by absolute morals. If people in the UK did that we would all stone people to death for being gay, working on Sunday or cheeking their parents. Morals change all the time, for good and bad.
I never said that. I said drugs, alcohol should be legal. If people choose to buy it and die that is their choice, no one else is hurt. I have been using alcohol for a long long time and all of my friends… never once been in a fight. Sure some people do, we can’t ban things on the off chance a person MIGHT assault someone. Assault is illegal because someone else WILL get hurt. You could take that further and say black poor people should be thrown in jail at birth as they are far more likely to commit a crime. People commit assault for many reasons, I doubt that they are all using alcohol.
I agree. However I think we have come to different conclusions. I think you’re right, education is not considered important in a capitalist society and generally speaking the educational standard in the UK at least as been dropping since the 1950s. Capitalism, however gives freedom and power to the individual. People are free to educate themselves, like me. I was thick as sĤt when I left university, you may well argue, I still am. Nothing compared to back then.
giving the educated beggars in russia is a really weak argument, it in fact shows that the onslaught of capitalism sucks the life out of quality society. with the upheaval of the political system people were on the streets. maybe someone wants to argue more specifically that this is the result of socialism
universal, free education for all. don’t let education become a commodity everywhere, as it is in the United States( but then again everything is there).
also a question. i bet none or very few of you actually control the means of production here, why defend something that is against your advantages?
Well is not free, someone is paying for it. I agree with your point though that taxes should support an educational system.
Just because we don’t control production doesn’t mean we don’t have advantages. Under capitalism, the individual is the most important factor, he is not forced to do nearly as much as under a socialist system. Like I said before, why not just mix them? Sometimes socialist policies seem better sometimes capitalist, why go to extremes? I don’t want to defend either system as I don’t agree with either fully.
or we can strive towards a completely socialist political system that implement marx’s ideals of equality, social justice, an opportunity for everyone according to their needs and abilities, and of course democracy.
and do not mix up democratic socialism and marxism with marxism-leninism(stalinism)
Ranting is fine by me, we all need to, just next time provide a beer or two for me would you?
See I am of the mind if you are stupid enough to not read contracts or get someone to help you comprehend the contract in its entirety, you deserve what you get. You should not be bailed out by society. I hear all the time that if the gov’t bails out corporations it should bail out individuals. Now this is just plain stupid without thought and without logic. Corporations can employ thousands of people. If that corporation goes belly up so do the thousands of people. The Gov’t is not helping the corporation specifically, it is securing jobs for the people. I really don’t comprehend how people can’t see this.
Now on to greed, lets look at what really goes on. Folks are not fully educated, true, but, that does not mean they are stupid. Ok so there is no union. Why do the people employed need a union to help them? Why can’t they help themselves? They really should be able to negotiate for better wages as a group or singularly on their own. But, they don’t,Why? because they fail to realize that they don’t need to follow. Sure one person can be replaced, they go in ask for a raise the boss cans them. why? Greed? Yep on both partys. The person wants more money to buy more things and the boss wants to keep their money so they can buy more things. Wierd situation. Do you realize no one negotiates their purchases? You walk into a supermarket and you pay exactly what they tell you to pay even if its not worth it.1$ or 2$ for a bottle of water?Get real. But we obviously pay this ridiculous price.
Folks blame corporations for this crap but, is it really? No. its us. We take the easiest quickest path. The individual is greedy about their time, their luxury, their status. We created the monsters, the dictators, the corporations, the laws, the rules by failing to control our own greed, by thinking the easiest path is the best path.
Create laws to control corporate greed, is that the real solution? No because as with any law there are loopholes around them, Lawyers write these laws and what do lawyers want to eventually do? work for corporations. Big bucks finding loopholes for these folks. It like computer programmers, they always leave a back door so that they can get into the program and change things without folks knowing. Lawyers are masters at this. Lawyers leave obvious back doors for other lawyers but not for the layman. The layman knows about loopholes but, we don’t take the time to look.
Now look at what Stalin and Hitler did, they woke people up, Ok so the people fell back to sleep shortly after but, during the time the folks were awake humanitarianism climbed higher than ever before, world laws, ethics and morals began to change. Statistics are hard to ignore when done on such a scale as these two gents did.
If asked I always say that a dictatorial gov’t is the most efficient fom of governing for huge populations. Now most folks somehow manage to hear that I just said it is the best form., that tells me how people think. Is there a best form of government yet? Many would say socialist/communist, many others would say democratic/republic. Few would ever say dictatorial. The reason dictators are so ill thought of is greed on both the people’s part and the dictator’s part.
But, imagine this if you will, one person trained from infancy to lead with an even hand. This person tested and tried to make them a superior leader for the people. When their education is done they can step into a postition of ruler.
To me this would be the most efficient and the best governing. Dictators raised in such away would actually be much better than what is on the table now. But, try telling this to people. They hear the words ruler and dictator they froth at the mouth. Large populations cannot survive with communism/socialism democratic/ republic. They are not people orientated for massive populations. They create seperations and classes that are so far apart trouble begins.
We can’t effieciently help all people nor rule with an even hand the way Gov’ts are set up now. These forms of governments were not designed for such massive populations.
There is no doubt that the majority of the industrialized world is living in both a socialistic and capitalistic world, a mixed economy, where people both compete and cooperate with each other. It’s a combination and the best of both worlds. We need socialism for social cohesion and the competition of capitalism to draw out the best and be innovative. Socialism tempers capitalism and capitalism keeps society from growing complacent and static.
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
mix up democratic socialism and marxism with marxism-leninism(stalinism) 