[Ahovking]

How can Socialist say capitalism doesn't work and fails at benefiting the poor when you have "Australia" who have higher standard of living, High wages, longer life spawn and low taxes when compared to lets say a Socialism of Cuba or even Venezuela. bounce points if you can find "one socialist state can has better "standard of living, High wages, longer life spawn etc." than Australia. in fact Australia has less poor than any Socialist based states. How can this be ?

This post is to improve my knowledge of socialism and is not ment to be an attack on "Socialism"

[quetzalcoatl]

It depends on the strictness of your definition of socialist. Do you regard the socialism of Eugene Debs as socialism? Do you regard the Scandinavians as socialist? Switzerland?

[Ahovking]

It depends on the strictness of your definition of socialist. Do you regard the socialism of Eugene Debs as socialism? Do you regard the Scandinavians as socialist? Switzerland?

I regard Eugene Debs as socialism.

[The Immortal Goon]

Australia is an imperialist place in part of the first world. Socialist societies (the definition is pretty hazy, most Marxists would say that socialism cannot exist in a single country alone) are not.

American soviets will be as different from the Russian soviets as the United States of President Roosevelt differs from the Russian Empire of Czar Nicholas II...

Your “radical” professors are dead wrong in their devotion to “managed money.” It is an academic idea that could easily wreck your entire system of distribution and production. That is the great lesson to be derived from the Soviet Union, where bitter necessity has been converted into official virtue in the monetary realm.

There the lack of a stable gold ruble is one of the main causes of our many economic troubles and catastrophes. It is impossible to regulate wages, prices and quality of goods without a firm monetary system. An unstable ruble in a Soviet system is like having variable molds in a conveyor-belt factory. It won’t work.

Only when socialism succeeds in substituting administrative control for money will it be possible to abandon a stable gold currency. Then money will become ordinary paper slips, like trolley or theater tickets. As socialism advances, these slips will also disappear, and control over individual consumption – whether by money or administration – will no longer be necessary when there is more than enough of everything for everybody!

Until then, the only way to reach such a state of development is to retain an effective regulator and measure for the working of your system. As a matter of fact, during the first few years a planned economy needs sound money even more than did old-fashioned capitalism. The professor who regulates the monetary unit with the aim of regulating the whole business system is like the man who tried to lift both his feet off the ground at the same time.

...In Russia we have been expanding our industrial plant by 20 and 30 percent a year; but – owing to a weak ruble – we have not been able to distribute this increase effectively. This is partly because we have allowed our bureaucracy to subject our monetary system to administrative one-sidedness. You will be spared this evil. As a result you will greatly surpass us in both increased production and distribution, leading to a rapid advance in the comfort and welfare of your population.

In all this, you will not need to imitate our standardized production for our pitiable mass consumers. We have taken over from czarist Russia a pauper’s heritage, a culturally undeveloped peasantry with a low standard of living. We had to build our factories and dams at the expense of our consumers. We have had continual monetary inflation and a monstrous bureaucracy.

[The first world] will not have to imitate our bureaucratic methods. Among us the lack of the bare necessities has caused an intense scramble for an extra loaf of bread, an extra yard of cloth by everyone. In this struggle our bureaucracy steps forward as a conciliator, as an all-powerful court of arbitration. You, on the other hand, are much wealthier and would have little difficulty in supplying all of your people with all of the necessities of life. Moreover, your needs, tastes and habits would never permit your bureaucracy to divide the national income. Instead, when you organize your society to produce for human needs rather than private profits, your entire population will group itself around new trends and groups, which will struggle with one another and prevent an overweening bureaucracy from imposing itself upon them.

You can thus avoid growth of bureaucratism by the practice of soviets, that is to say, democracy – the most flexible form of government yet developed. Soviet organization cannot achieve miracles but must simply reflect the will of the people. With us the soviets have been bureaucratized as a result of the political monopoly of a single party, which has itself become a bureaucracy. This situation resulted from the exceptional difficulties of socialist pioneering in a poor and backward country.

The basic answer is that even Russia, the strongest of these places, was only a "weak link" in the "chain of capitalism." It was not at the head, or the bottom as so many other places that turned to socialism out of (understandable) desperation.

This does not mean that capitalism itself is sustainable, as it created these places that have been attempting to break away from its grasp for as long as capitalism has been around. Eventually capitalism will be large and strong enough that it will collapse, even if not in a day. The Soviet experiment and the states that exist today are just as Cromwell and Napoleon attempting to topple feudalism before being labeled as utopian tyrants with cults of personality that wanted a new system that would result in nothing but blood and chaos.

They got their system in a way they could never have imagined, and the utopian tyrants with cults of personality that wanted a new system that would result in nothing but blood and chaos will eventually have theirs in a way beyond their imagination.

[anticlimacus]

How can Socialist say capitalism doesn't work and fails at benefiting the poor when you have "Australia" who have higher standard of living, High wages, longer life spawn and low taxes when compared to lets say a Socialism of Cuba or even Venezuela. bounce points if you can find "one socialist state can has better "standard of living, High wages, longer life spawn etc." than Australia. in fact Australia has less poor than any Socialist based states. How can this be ?

Clearly capitalism works for some, but part of the critique from a Marxist and socialist perspective is that its "working" must come at the expense of its "not working" for somebody else. Thus not only do you have Australia, but you have half of the world malnourished, without adequate shelter, education, and food. Such unequal distribution of economic power is what allows states like Australia and the US to maintain its success. You also have global economic crises like we saw in 2007/8, etc. Capitalism is a global system, especially today, and that is an inescapable fact. We could also look at how capitalism impoverished Russia in the 90s, but that would not be representative of capitalism. We cannot just look at individual capitalist countries (good or bad) and thus try to understand it.

[Quantum]

How can Socialist say capitalism doesn't work and fails at benefiting the poor when you have "Australia" who have higher standard of living, High wages, longer life spawn and low taxes when compared to lets say a Socialism of Cuba or even Venezuela. bounce points if you can find "one socialist state can has better "standard of living, High wages, longer life spawn etc." than Australia. in fact Australia has less poor than any Socialist based states. How can this be ?

How do you know that the differences between Australia, Cuba and Venezuela are mainly due to the economic system? Would Cuba and Venezuela become wealthy if they adopted Western free market reforms, or would it remain poor?

East Germany was far more developed than many non-socialist third world. Maybe there are even controversial theories why these countries have been poor for time immemorial and will remain poor for a long time or maybe forever.

BTW, Venezuela is not a socialist country. Apart from the oil, which admittedly makes up a large percentage of the economy, the rest is privately owned. Chavismo is just populism and nothing more.

[Turning Point]

How can Socialists say capitalism doesn't work and fails at benefiting the poor...

Because capitalism, in it's present incarnation, is failing the vast majority of the world's populace. Just in South Africa alone, a seemingly stable society that was suddenly and violently shook by a spate of miners' uprisings, the lower classes whom toil in the mines live without such basic amenities (or for that matter, necessities) as electricity and running water. The uprising was the result of their conditions, that and not being paid even a bare minimum for their efforts to effectively mine for foreign and/or domestic mining companies which in turn grow fat off of the resultant profits acquired from the country's abundant mineral resources.

What the mining companies-and the government-did was uncalled for. Miners and their families were victimized by a vicious police force intent on doing what it a was always meant to do: to protect the interests of the ruling, capitalist class. Miners were locked out as companies made counter moves against the strikers and as strikers in turn made their own moves against the mine bosses.

One doesn't have to look far to see how capitalism criminalizes the poor in it's never ending search for profit.

when you have "Australia" who have higher standard of living, High wages, longer life spawn and low taxes

As TIG has said, Australia is a country locked into the global imperialist dynamic. Wages, furthermore, are the scraps given to workers for a job well done.

Marx, from his 1844 manuscripts:

The lowest and the only necessary wage rate is that providing for the subsistence of the worker for the duration of his work and as much more as is necessary for him to support a family and for the race of labourers not to die out. The ordinary wage, according to Smith, is the lowest compatible with common humanity [6], that is, with cattle-like existence.

Wages aren't made high for the workers' benefit. If the economy were to tank right now in Australia wages would drop dramatically as in Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc. Wages are made high or low if, and only if, it benefits the capitalist first and foremost.

compared to lets say a Socialism of Cuba

You clearly lack a firm understanding of Cuba and socialism, for that matter.

Cuba (and Venezuela) have made great strides when it comes to decreasing inequality. Cuba, despite being besieged by the U.S., has effectively made itself relatively self-sufficient despite the trade embargo. This in a country that's only a small blip of the world map and which has managed to keep in place socialist policies to a certain degree despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, it's chief trading partner and ally.

in fact Australia has less poor than any Socialist based states

No statistics, no facts about just why we are to assume that Australia has less poor supposedly then the remnants of what once were considered for the most part socialist states. The only country that has really managed to retain it's socialist character is Cuba, which is remarkable seeing as to how the U.S. has sought to destabilize it for decades and well into the 21st century through a barrage of propaganda and lies, not to mention numerous failed attempts at political assassinations of its top leadership.

The truth of the matter is that 20th century socialism didn't succeed in it's final goal of eradicating capitalism; capitalism was only erased in third world or otherwise "weak-link" states (Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, etc.), and was still very much intact across most of the world throughout the entirety of the 20th centuries. Granted, despite being outgunned and outnumbered globally these states achieved momentous achievements in getting rid of centuries-worth of inequality and dependence on foreign powers (in China or Vietnam's case for example).

Under Mao, China not only got "the bomb" but it also managed to mostly eliminate rural inequality along socialist lines by redistributing land as to benefit the vast majority of the poorer peasantry and by creating local self-governance at the village level which freed the villages from the grip of semi-feudalism and the land lords/owners. All this by the early 1950's and only a few years after the culmination of the 1949 Revolution.

What China or Cuba did was/is so much more impressive then what Australia can ever do under capitalism.

[Eran]

Australia is an imperialist place in part of the first world. Socialist societies (the definition is pretty hazy, most Marxists would say that socialism cannot exist in a single country alone) are not.

In what sense is Australia more imperialistic than Russia? After all, ethnic Russians originated in the Moscow area, yet now politically dominate the vast land area of Siberia, having displaced (again, both physically and politically) the native peoples of the region.

Clearly capitalism works for some, but part of the critique from a Marxist and socialist perspective is that its "working" must come at the expense of its "not working" for somebody else. Thus not only do you have Australia, but you have half of the world malnourished, without adequate shelter, education, and food.

Except that this is not the case. Hundreds of millions of people all over the world are being lifted from their historic poverty and gradually approaching western standards of living.

With the notable exception of sub-Saharan Africa, the world's population is better off than ever before.

Until 1800, the vast majority of humanity lived on $3/day (in recent money terms). Today, only the bottom billion do. Most live much better, longer, more satisfying lives. All thanks to capitalism.

[anticlimacus]

Except that this is not the case. Hundreds of millions of people all over the world are being lifted from their historic poverty and gradually approaching western standards of living.

With the notable exception of sub-Saharan Africa, the world's population is better off than ever before.

Until 1800, the vast majority of humanity lived on $3/day (in recent money terms). Today, only the bottom billion do. Most live much better, longer, more satisfying lives. All thanks to capitalism.

This would be true if we accept the premise that capitalism is the only thing that has had to do with the rise of the standard of living where it has occurred. Where we have seen rises in the standard of living this has, at times been precisely opposed to capitalism (for instance Venezuela and the rise in production in Soviet Russia). We can also look at state involvement and thus have to consider the rise of the modern state as a part of the rise of standard of living--but is this an argument for the state? To me the most glaring and damning fact of contemporary society is the fact that while we have the productive capacity to feed, shelter, educate, and provide health access to everybody in the world, more than half the world goes without adequate access to any of these. This is, of course, in addition to global environmental crises and the damage of modern warfare. Capitalism, by itself, is not to blame for all this--but it is integral to it and seems to exacerbate these problems.

[The Immortal Goon]

In what sense is Australia more imperialistic than Russia? After all, ethnic Russians originated in the Moscow area, yet now politically dominate the vast land area of Siberia, having displaced (again, both physically and politically) the native peoples of the region.

In the Leninist sense.

[Eran]

Sure, I could read a 300-page manuscript. But presuming you already did, would you be so kind as to summarize (preferable in your own words) the essential argument?

Thanks!

[The Immortal Goon]

I'd try to put this into words that someone who can't use google or read a pamphlet (or even the section called: Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism) would understand, but I'm guessing that would be rude.

To directly answer the question, imperialism in the Leninist sense, is a culmination of capitalism. Capitalism gets to a point where there are global companies and services that have no competition in the original sense that capitalism had entailed in previous incarnations. For instance, when Marx was writing, the biggest company in the world was probably the Cyfartha iron company, worth about $2 million, with 5,000 employees. By the time Lenin was writing, US Steel was amongst the largest, international in scope, with countless employees all over the world, and combined with other companies.

As these companies become bigger, they take up bigger portions of supplies. Since capitalism must grow, you have fewer and fewer powerful players pushing against each other in order to get an increasingly small amount of materials and increasingly rare untapped markets.

At the same time capitalism was making these changes, a concept was already called, "The New Imperialism," in which the big powers were carving up the world in the 19th-20th Centuries.

Lenin related the rise of bigger and more complicated capitalism to the new imperialism, and did so by calling it imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism.

Kautsky (a Marxist) theorized that this would be fine, even a good thing.

Capitalists theorized that everything would be great as a result.

Lenin, in 1916, said the situation would lead to a world war within a few years. What a fool.

Regardless, this is the sense that Australia (a capitalist country tied into a sophisticated capitalist economy) is imperialist while the ethnic Rus migrating further into Russia as the Khans declined in power during the Middle Ages is not imperialist in "the highest stage of capitalism" sense.

[Eran]

I am confused. I thought Imperialism in the Leninist sense refers to expansion of capitalist enterprises beyond their home markets into new territories. Are you suggesting that the Imperialistic nature of Australia has to do with the British expansion into Australia, or with a subsequent expansion of Australian corporations into the rest of the world?

And would you agree that the Leninist sense of seeing Imperialism as a high stage in the development of Capitalism is narrower than the ordinary definition of Imperialism ("the creation and/or maintenance of a country's power and influence through military power"), which would include, for example, Tsarist and Soviet Russian imperialism?

[The Immortal Goon]

I am confused. I thought Imperialism in the Leninist sense refers to expansion of capitalist enterprises beyond their home markets into new territories.

Suddenly you know all about it, I see, whereas only a post ago you were unable to bring yourself to begin to understand anything I didn't boil down into the most basic, "essential argument."

Are you suggesting that the Imperialistic nature of Australia has to do with the British expansion into Australia, or with a subsequent expansion of Australian corporations into the rest of the world?

Yes.

And would you agree that the Leninist sense of seeing Imperialism as a high stage in the development of Capitalism is narrower than the ordinary definition of Imperialism ("the creation and/or maintenance of a country's power and influence through military power"), which would include, for example, Tsarist and Soviet Russian imperialism?

As has already been pointed out, "the ordinary definition of Imperialism" had already been distinctive from the "narrower" imperialism in the 19th Century.

Link.
Link.
Link.
Link.
Link.
Link.
Link.
Link.

Really though, you're describing the surface level results and ignoring the causes by framing a question like that. It's not "narrower" but an actual different kind of imperialism.