[Erratus]

Is capitalism really all that bad? True, pure capitalism like we initially had was horrible, but social democracy seems to have turned that around. Most people in a first world country get medicine, education, and food (I support the idea of having programs in place to make sure everything has these). And the exploitation in 3rd world countries can end by them becoming devolved countries. The proletariat might not be in the driver's seat, but they dont seem particularly abused. It is a functional system that does benefit everyone (maybe some more than others, but still), or at least theoretically could be.

[Paradigm]

It's not just that capitalism is bad. It's inherently unstable, and we are currently witnessing it collapse under its own contradictions. Capitalism was a necessary step in mobilizing the forces of production, and overthrew the previous feudal system of exploitation with one based on capital. But the rent-seeking and speculation have reached an apex beyond which the system cannot continue.

Most people in a first world country get medicine, education, and food

Slaves were fed and taken care of as well. Slaves in ancient times(not in the more recent days of race-based slavery) could even be educated. But they were still slaves. And our current system of human rental known as the wage system is different only by degree than the system of human sales known as slavery.

And the exploitation in 3rd world countries can end by them becoming devolved countries.

Freudian slip?

The proletariat might not be in the driver's seat, but they dont seem particularly abused.

Right, because we totally don't have people being forced out of their homes, being denied healthcare, having education cut, etc. Have you noticed how many proletariat are talking about "occupying" different places lately? You might want to look that up.

BTW, your avatar violates forum rules.

[qaz]

Though perhaps less than the past, Capitalism still functions on the exploitation of the proletariat. Those who contribute most to production generally end up with the least, which, in my opinion, is fundamentally wrong.

[Erratus]

Paradigm,

I will agree that capitalism can be cruel, but I do believe in social democracy to put safety nets in place for those who hit hard times. I don't necessarily see the need to completely throw out capitalism. I realize that corporations will never put people before profits, but with enough government regulations they can be forced into a similar place. Also, you described capitalism as unstable and in need or replacement. I think I started reading about this in Marx's Capital but I still don't exactly have a clear picture of it. I know that the (capitalistic) economy goes through cycles, but how is it over-all deteriorating?

[lucky]

we are currently witnessing it (capitalism) collapse under its own contradictions

Your socialist buddies have been saying that for 100 years. Actually, a lot more people used to say stuff like that when USSR still existed. And in the meantime, more and more countries have embraced basically capitalist economies.

Give me the specifics. Testable predictions, not some mumbo-jumbo about capitalism's undefined, abstract, vague "collapse". With a timeline, so that you can later go back and see how these predictions worked out.

Will I, for example, no longer be allowed to invest my private money in the stock market or in my own for-profit startup capital in the US? Will I, perhaps, not even be able to freely exchange money for consumer goods like food in an open market? If so, when?

[Godstud]

Capitalism, without checks and balances, IS that bad.

Your socialist buddies have been saying that for 100 years.

Socialism, is actually doing pretty well in the world. You're describing Communism, not Socialism.

And in the meantime, more and more countries have embraced basically capitalist economies.

Some of those countries, like the US, are having problems now.

Some of the most successful countries in the world are, at least partly, Socialist, now. You're also mistaking an ideology(Socialism), for an economic system(Capitalism).

[Vera Politica]

Give me the specifics. Testable predictions, not some mumbo-jumbo about capitalism's undefined, abstract, vague "collapse". With a timeline, so that you can later go back and see how these predictions worked out.

I understand your sentiment and agree, in many respects, that Marxism has turned into a degenerative research programme, lagging 'behind the facts' and attempting to explain them in retrospect to preserve the core of Marxian theory, rather than predict 'novel facts'. Orthodox, classical Marxism was, however, a progressive programme with bold, testable predictions, some of which panned out but many important ones did not.

In any case, it may be slightly disingenuous to say that an economic theory must have specific predictions on this particular subject -- something like, the economy will stop functioning in 2012. I think one important aspect of Marxian analysis is that 'business cycles' or crises of overproduction are endemic to the system. Marxists, however, believe that not amount of government intervention or regulation can solve the systematic contradictions, only delay them. Crises that tend to demand austerity seem to validate this general hypothesis.

Socialism, is actually doing pretty well in the world. You're describing Communism, not Socialism.

Lucky is not confused on this point. I think you are lumping social democrats (or, worse, authoritarian capitalists) along with socialists.

You're also mistaking an ideology(Socialism), for an economic system(Capitalism).

Again, I'm not sure Lucky is the one confused here. There is such a thing as a Socialist Economic System. In fact, Marxian socialists have somewhat refrained from trying to describe the politico-legal superstructure of a socialist economy.

[Godstud]

Where is this Socialist Economic System being practiced?

[Vera Politica]

Where is this Socialist Economic System being practiced?

An economic system need not be practiced for it to qualify as an economic system. The Soviet Union, in any case, was largely a Socialist Economic system.

[daft punk]

The USSR was not socialist. In fact it was mortal enemies with socialism.

[Fraqtive42]

...but social democracy seems to have turned that around.

America, along with most other European countries (not including the Nordic countries), is not a Social Democracy. We are perhaps one of the most neoliberal countries in the world, and it is not turning around. Almost constantly, Republican senators (and some Democratic senators) have voted against any laws that socialize any section of the economy. This extreme privatization has concentrated wealth into a decreasingly small portion of the population. Even countries such as Norway and Sweden are losing economic stability under the heavy influence of neoliberalism and globalization. Along with the rightward drift that western countries have been experiencing, they have also been losing a substantial amount of economic rights.

[daft punk]

Socialism, is actually doing pretty well in the world. You're describing Communism, not Socialism.

There are no socialist countries and never have been. Communism and socialism are the same thing.

Some of the most successful countries in the world are, at least partly, Socialist, now. You're also mistaking an ideology(Socialism), for an economic system(Capitalism).

No they arent. And socialism is an economic system just as capitalism is, and they both have their ideologies. In fact capitalism has it's ideology, but strictly speaking socialism does not. Marxism does have elements of ideology but fundamentally it is self critical, whereas capitalism's ideology is deliberately obscuring social relations.

in many respects, that Marxism has turned into a degenerative research programme, lagging 'behind the facts'

Can you give examples?

Where is this Socialist Economic System being practiced?

The Soviet Union, in any case, was largely a Socialist Economic system.

No it wasnt. Socialism involves the masses in democratic planning. That didnt happen in Russia. It was not socialism. It was a dictatorship by a bureaucracy.

Lenin, 1918:
"Proletarian democracy is a million times more democratic than any bourgeois democracy;"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... ocracy.htm

America, along with most other European countries (not including the Nordic countries), is not a Social Democracy. We are perhaps one of the most neoliberal countries in the world, and it is not turning around. Almost constantly, Republican senators (and some Democratic senators) have voted against any laws that socialize any section of the economy. This extreme privatization has concentrated wealth into a decreasingly small portion of the population. Even countries such as Norway and Sweden are losing economic stability under the heavy influence of neoliberalism and globalization. Along with the rightward drift that western countries have been experiencing, they have also been losing a substantial amount of economic rights.

Correct

[Fraqtive42]

There are no socialist countries and never have been. Communism and socialism are the same thing.

Well, it really depends on how Socialism is defined. Marx would define a Socialist State as a state that is making a transition from Capitalism to Communism, but many definitions of Socialism are almost entirely apart from his definition. Many Socialists in America are harsh critics of Marxism and other forms of Communism. These people are Democratic Socialists, and they are diametrically opposed to the authoritarian aspect of Marxism (by 'authoritarian' I mean banning things such as religion).

There are some countries which define themselves as non-Marxist socialist states. A good example is India, which states in the preamble that it is a socialist state by non-Marxist standards. However, India's definition of Socialism is much 'weaker', i.e. it is still largely capitalist, with relatively heavy economic regulation.

No it wasnt. Socialism involves the masses in democratic planning. That didnt happen in Russia. It was not socialism. It was a dictatorship by a bureaucracy.

Not all Socialism takes on a democratic form. Russia, in my opinion, was socialist. Stalin was an extreme left-winger (referring to left-wing strictly as a measure of economic regulation). However, Russia tended to deviate strongly from Marxism. Now, people have a specific word for the ideology corresponding to Stalin's views, 'Stalinism'. Stalinism is an extremely left-wing, extremely authoritarian ideology.

[Vera Politica]

Can you give examples?

Marxism-Lenninism, in its attempt to save the Marxian core from refutation after the first socialist revolution took place in a non-industrialized nation.

Not all Socialism takes on a democratic form

Indeed. A worker's state will tend towards authoritarianism given counter-revolutionary forces and the ongoing class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

[Fraqtive42]

A worker's state will tend towards authoritarianism given counter-revolutionary forces and the ongoing class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

True, but almost any state with a substantial amount of reactionaries will drift towards a more right-wing stance (unless of course the reactionaries are left-wing, which is rare). During a delicate stage such as the transition from Capitalism to Socialism, this drift may be amplified. This can make the transition especially hard without applying Authoritarianism. In my opinion, the transition from Neoliberalism to Democratic Socialism would be virtually impossible without damaging the democracy of the state.

[daft punk]

Well, it really depends on how Socialism is defined. Marx would define a Socialist State as a state that is making a transition from Capitalism to Communism,

I dont think so. That was more Lenin's definition. Marx talked about a lower and higher stage of communism, he never called himself a socialist. Words change.

but many definitions of Socialism are almost entirely apart from his definition.

Socialism and communism are the same thing. The only real definition is Marxist. Apart form Marxism you have anarchism and reformism. That's it. I woulnt really call reformists socialists.

These people are Democratic Socialists, and they are diametrically opposed to the authoritarian aspect of Marxism (by 'authoritarian' I mean banning things such as religion).

Marxism is not authoritarian and would not ban religion.

There are some countries which define themselves as non-Marxist socialist states. A good example is India, which states in the preamble that it is a socialist state by non-Marxist standards. However, India's definition of Socialism is much 'weaker', i.e. it is still largely capitalist, with relatively heavy economic regulation.

India is not socialist, it never has been. The most 'socialist' bits are places like Kerala and they had democratically elected 'Communist' governments, but they are still not socialist. In fact I was talking about this recently with a friend who comes from Kerala. He said himself the 'Communists' are not really communist. He had quite a good grasp on Indian politics. India was phoney socialism, not Stalinism, more crony capitalism mixed with state intervention. Having said that, Kerala is one of the better parts of India to live.

Not all Socialism takes on a democratic form. Russia, in my opinion, was socialist. Stalin was an extreme left-winger (referring to left-wing strictly as a measure of economic regulation). However, Russia tended to deviate strongly from Marxism. Now, people have a specific word for the ideology corresponding to Stalin's views, 'Stalinism'. Stalinism is an extremely left-wing, extremely authoritarian ideology.

No! Stalin was on the right. He didn't give a toss about socialism. He killed or exiled the Left Opposition. He collectivised because the capitalists were growing and becoming a threat to him personally. How can you deviate from Marxism and still be left wing? The only way is ultra-left and that can be used to describe Stalinism but only from 1928-34. And only in the sense that they refused to work with other workers parties like the SPD in Germany, thus allowing the Nazis into power. The Comintern went into the Third Period because it believed, completely at the wrong time, that world revolution was about to happen. After 1934 Stalin went back to his right wing policy of class-collaboration with capitalists, except in Russia where he killed them, along with socialists.

Marxism-Lenninism, in its attempt to save the Marxian core from refutation after the first socialist revolution took place in a non-industrialized nation.

Eh? What? Can you explain a bit? You talking about Stalinism?

Indeed. A worker's state will tend towards authoritarianism given counter-revolutionary forces and the ongoing class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

But it's not socialism, it's a workers state trying to move towards socialism, or in the case of the USSR after 1925, moving away from moving towards socialism.

True, but almost any state with a substantial amount of reactionaries will drift towards a more right-wing stance (unless of course the reactionaries are left-wing, which is rare). During a delicate stage such as the transition from Capitalism to Socialism, this drift may be amplified. This can make the transition especially hard without applying Authoritarianism. In my opinion, the transition from Neoliberalism to Democratic Socialism would be virtually impossible without damaging the democracy of the state.

Yes they had to cut down on democracy during the civil war. But there was nothing socialist about Stalin killing all the socialists.

[Vera Politica]

Eh? What? Can you explain a bit? You talking about Stalinism?

I am using Marxism-Lenninism as an umbrella term for post-Marxist, Eastern European and Chinese reformulations of Marxism in order to explain why the revolution took place in Russia (and then in China) rather than the industrial centers of Western Europe. In particular, Lennin's 'imperial' appendage to the Marxian analysis of Capitalism is a specific example of adding auxiliary theories to prevent the core of a research programme from being refuted. Classical Marxism was in serious trouble in the early 20th century.

But it's not socialism, it's a workers state trying to move towards socialism, or in the case of the USSR after 1925, moving away from moving towards socialism.

A worker's state is a transitory socialist state still marked by class conflict. Socialism is only a transition to Communism, since Communism is not marked by class conflict (since it is a stage where classes have been abolished). If you believe otherwise, you are not a Marxist.

[daft punk]

I am using Marxism-Lenninism as an umbrella term for post-Marxist, Eastern European and Chinese reformulations of Marxism in order to explain why the revolution took place in Russia (and then in China) rather than the industrial centers of Western Europe. In particular, Lennin's 'imperial' appendage to the Marxian analysis of Capitalism is a specific example of adding auxiliary theories to prevent the core of a research programme from being refuted. Classical Marxism was in serious trouble in the early 20th century.

To me, Marxism-Lenninism is what Stalinists like to euphemistically call themselves. Anyway, the best explanation of why the revolution happened in Russia is Trotsky's speech In Defence of October.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/11/oct.htm
If you havent read it, do so, it's short and is essential reading.



I dont see why Marxism was in trouble, Marx did hint at what Trotsky developed later.

Preface to the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto:

"If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development."

Karl Marx & Frederick Engels
January 21, 1882, London

Trotsky of course was the one who went flat out and predicted socialist revolution in Russia. The Bolsheviks denied it, but in 1917 Lenin came round to Trotsky's way of thinking and then had to convince the rest of his party.

A worker's state is a transitory socialist state still marked by class conflict. Socialism is only a transition to Communism, since Communism is not marked by class conflict (since it is a stage where classes have been abolished). If you believe otherwise, you are not a Marxist.

I don't believe otherwise. What makes you think I might do?

[Vera Politica]

I dont see why Marxism was in trouble, Marx did hint at what Trotsky developed later.

Because a central prediction of classical Marxian economics was that the revolution would take place within advanced, industrialized nations (where there was a significant prolateriat present and where the dominant mode of production was capitalist).

Trotsky is among one of the degenerative Marxian theorists or, a theorist working within a degenerative research programme. Unfortunately Trotsky did nothing to turn Marxism back into a progressive social science. A failed attempt at this was also made by Analytical Marxists (mostly British) in the 1970s and 80s.

The quote has nothing to do with this discussion and, more to the point, the quote hints that the common ownership of land in Russia would signal a proletarian revolution in the west. More context is needed to see what is being said there and it adds little to this discussion.

[Conscript]

Trotsky never 'predicted' socialism in Russia. Rather, he and Lenin developed a way to tie the completing of the tasks of the bourgeois revolution in semi-feudal Russia with socialist revolution in the advanced capitalist countries. Their solution was contrary of Stalin's stagist, pro-provisional gov't line as general secretary pre-april 1917, which Stalin never really retreated from. Also that Marx quote isn't really related to Trotsky's permanent revolution, it's an example of Marx's later delvings into the question of revolution in backwards conditions.

Because a central prediction of classical Marxian economics was that the revolution would take place within advanced, industrialized nations (where there was a significant prolateriat present and where the dominant mode of production was capitalist).

That never changed. Lenin never considered socialism in Russia possible without international revolution, and he spoke out against suggestions of otherwise. He knew the only thing that could be immediately built after tsarist semi-feudalism was state capitalism a la Germany. It wasn't until Stalinist times that this state-capitalism became 'socialism in one country'.

Trotsky is among one of the degenerative Marxian theorists or, a theorist working within a degenerative research programme.

What makes him degenerate? His ideas were what helped define Lenin's bolsheviks from the reformist, stagist marxists like the Mensheviks.

Unfortunately Trotsky did nothing to turn Marxism back into a progressive social science.

Lenin would disagree. Let's not forget the Russian revolution was essentially a permanent revolution.