[Demosthenes]

Ok, what I mean is does anyone have any idea why, If country A is say... Capitalist, and Country B is say... Communist, why can't they all just get along? Is it some fundamental rift between these economic models that will always cause these two countries to be on a collision course, or has politics just gotten in the way. I'm assuming the countries are roughly equal in size, population, prosperity, and tech. level. Hell, lets even assume culture is in the same ballpark.

Now, I already know all the "Imperialistic, Capaitalist, evil bastards...blah, blah, blah" so please spare me the "if the capitalists weren't greedy" rhetoric and give me an honest opinion. Lets assume we're talking about theoretical countries here like say Capitalistville, and Communistheim, Shall we? I'm not loooking for: Well the USSR was just evil or the US is just evil and that's why it'll never work. I'm wondering is their some basic principle aside from the obvious economic models that would prevent these two from being allies or even good friends. And yes I know this is an idealistic question and I know this model is somewhat overly simplistic but hopefully you get the idea...?

I guess the basis for this is that if you could use a magic paintbrush and wipe away McCarthyism from our past and whatever is equal to that in the USSRs past would we still have had to have been enemies? Or failing that would each country automatically have assumed that any other country with the other's economic model has to be an enemy?

[Tigerlily]

First, I would say a lot of hositility between USA and the USSR was caused by the arms race and the fact that they were different politically and the US seems to not like any countries which don't follow the "right kind of politics".

Now for Capitalistville and Communistheim. The most logic thing that comes to my mind is they greatly differ in economic and political beliefs. Oh wait. You want something else than that?

I just think it's the people's (citizens) attitudes about each other that would make it hard for the two countries to get along. Just think about yourself. Do you get along better generally with people with similar beliefs than you or people who are the total opposite?

[Demosthenes]

they greatly differ in economic and political beliefs.

Well economic, yes but as I mentioned the two theoretical countries are culturally similar. At least in some meaningful ways.

Just think about yourself. Do you get along better generally with people with similar beliefs than you or people who are the total opposite?

Well yes, I understand this basic point well, but I also like to think, in the name of peace and friendship we can, potentially at least, work these differences out. IMO- fundamentally everybody, no matter where they're from or who they are, feels about the same on the inside. I know there are obvious exceptions but I mean all things being equal, we're all about the same internally. We want food, clothing, shelter, and a sense of security. So once again I'm back to my original question.

[jaakko]

Why can't capitalism and socialism co-exist peacefully?

Countries nor social systems themselves don't have interests.

If we look at the history, we see that "Cold War" against socialism and national liberation movements in fact began already in 1917.

But why war and struggle?

-Antagonistic contradiction. The interests of those classes which these social systems represent, are in an antagonistic contradiction. Temporary peace is possible, but the inevitability of wars stay as long as imperialism. In the era of monopoly capitalism, the contradiction isn't so much "socialist countries vs. capitalist countries", as it is between the "socialist countries and oppressed capitalist nations vs. imperialist countries and blocs". The contradiction isn't so great between the socialist countries and the small, non-imperialist countries, because the latter aren't exporting capital or trying to control world's raw material resources and cheap labour reserves, thus making it possible between these countries to co-exist peacefully and trade.

[Demosthenes]

Ok guys, I was afraid this would just end up being a proxy war, (which I was trying not to start) or just contiuous thinly (or not so thinly) veiled assaualts on the US, unfortunatly, no one here is obviously capable of that so maybe I should have just listened to my better judgemnet.

You know it kinf of aggravates me that I'm trying to put aside bias in the name of reaching some sort of reasonable discussion but so far its just business as usual with everyone else. Oh well I knew better

P.S.- No offense Kolzene, I know you mean well.

[jaakko]

Demosthenes,

I know what you meant. But you asked a question, so what can I do? The reality just happens to be biased. I consciously avoided the most biased words, like "evil bastards". I didn't talk about what's good and what's evil.

If you ask why there occurs wars and struggle between countries of different social system, the answer just isn't:
"Because they hate each other and if they just gave up their prejudices, there would be peace".
I claim that wars have objective basis, which can't be eliminated through psychology. Also, there has been many times more wars between capitalist countries than between socialist and capitalist countries.

"The inherent aggressiveness of man" is not the cause of war. Such thing doesn't exist (if it did, conscription wouldn't exist anywhere). Such thing isn't needed for wars to exist.

You can still wait for others to answer your question.

[Boondock Saint]

I would actually contest the question itself ...

I think we DO see gov'ts of different economic and political forms living peacefully ...

There are socilist nations that work together with capitalist nations. There are monarchies that work together with communists and their are democracies which work together with dictatorships.

So I think the question itself is wrong in its assumption that such political or economic models cant work together.

After all ... its really just the US and the USSR that didnt play nice with anyone, and now that the USSR isnt around anymore the US gets to shove its weight around more of the world.

[John Doe]

As I recall the soviets announced they were going to take over the world. That is bound to create some hostility... after all, aren't you Europeans in a snit because of some think tank article proclaimed this was going to be America's Century whether you like it or not?

[Proctor]

Demosthenes, I think it might be worthwhile to wait a bit. It hasn't been too bad as far as prepackaged slander goes.

If you want to know my opinion, I think that the two systems can't exist alongside one another by definition. Communism requires that there be an evil parasitic class, and if the workers in Capitalistville are happy, what is the point of changing to Communism? So a reason has to be invented.

But at the same time, the important people in Capitalistville can't let their workers get carried away with this new idea, even if it isn't all that good in the first place. So they need to convince everyone that Communistheim is evil just as much as much.


Sorry. This didn't come out as clearly as I'd hoped. I'll try again if anyone wants.

[Demosthenes]

No Procter, that is exactly what I was hoping for. I'll re-edit this a little later to explain a little more why I asked this, and to make sure Kolzene knows why some of his comments frustrate me.

Ok, awhile back I was reading a book on the history of Vietnam, and out involvement there. From the beginning it becomes apparent that this war may not have happened if it weren't for Joe McCarthy's influence on the nation. The book stated something to the effect that the US considered all communist nations a threat simply because they were communist. It mentions in full detail that Ho Chi Minh was far more Nationalist than anything else. That had we helped him early on we might have been able to keep the country capitalist. It clearly indicates he turned to Russia out of necessity not due to belief in any communist ideology.

This relates to the topic because the book goes on to question whether just because a country is communist or capitalist does this relly mean they have to be enemies? So that is the basis for the question. I have wondered about this since I read the book about 7 years ago. Sort of an of we have different economies but is this the basis for a need to have an enemy? It seems rather dim to me. I know between the US and USSR their were many other differences that maybe put us on a collision course but what about Vietnam? what about China? No matter what anyone says about alleged US imperialism we had very little to gain militarily in Vietnam. We went there because the specter of Joe McCarthy still convinved people Communists had to be the enemy. No matter what country they were from.

[Ragnar]

Also, there has been many times more wars between capitalist countries than between socialist and capitalist countries.

According to the book Power Kills by RJ Rummel the opposite is true. Though his basis is liberal democracy vs "nondemocracies". Which I am correlating to relative capitalism vs relative socialism.

Here's his definition of liberal democracy "By democracy is meant liberal democracy, where those who hold power are elected in competitive elections with secret ballot and wide franchise (loosely understood as including at least 2/3rds of adult males) where there is freedom of speech, religion, and organization; and a constitutional framework of law to which the government is subordinate and that guarantees equal rights."

Now some of his conclusions:
"If one defines an international war as any military engagement in which 1,000 or more were killed then there were 33 wars, 353 pairs of nations... engaged in such wars between 1816 and 1991. None were between 2 democracies, 155 pairs involved a democracy and a nondemocracy, and 198 involved 2 nondemocracies fighting each other."


Now on to why "We can't all just get along". Capitalism is about private voluntary agreements between individuals, its pluralism and incentive structure produce immense wealth, and a prosperous middle class. It is not directed to any goal other than the differing self-interested goals of its citizens. Communism is (despite theoretical idealism) about force and about directing people (by force) to a common goal, about subjugating people to a "central authority".

Due to the incentive structure of communism not much wealth is created, people work only as much as they are forced to(we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us). Without a market and the individual thought of millions of owners to direct production, what is produced tends to not be what is most needed. It's just impossible for a central authority to know what's needed and to change the "plan" every hour to accomodate changing needs in every aspect of the economy. Without a market responsive to the needs of society, there are only 2 ways to supply the needs: charity from the outside, or enlarge the empire, take over a nation that has what you need.

Communism must be predatory, to supply its needs, since it cannot create proper (positive) incentives to spur production, or direct labor to where production is needed, so it cannot exist peacefully alongside capitalism.

[jaakko]

The fact stays as I said, there has been more wars between capitalist countries than between capitalist and socialist countries, even if we include also the nominally 'socialist' but essentially capitalist countries.

And what about these wars between capitalist and declared socialist countries? The first historical example was the imperialist multinational intervention against Soviet Russia after WWI. That is the moment when the Cold War really started.

The 'democracy'/'non-democracy' -division used in the book he mentioned, is very subjective and vague. There's no such distinctive social system as 'democracy', because democracy can be practised in all social systems, starting from slavery. In wars between capitalist countries, some may be more democratic than the other, but I'm not aware of any capitalist country where democracy wasn't practised at all by and among the ruling class.

But anyway, it's not the governmental models that clash (because institutions don't have interests, needs or will), but class interests.
I don't get into Ragnar's anti-socialist and anti-communist slanders. Except for this:

Communism must be predatory, to supply its needs, since it cannot create proper (positive) incentives to spur production, or direct labor to where production is needed, so it cannot exist peacefully alongside capitalism.

As I said above, the first war between capitalism and socialism was started by the capitalist states. That's quite similar to the reaction of the feudal states to the first bourgeois revolutions.

Then, what about the claim of socialist states being predatory and warmongering?
Do you know what's the problem with this? No one would profit from it. You talk of communism as some supernatural force, which acts like some spiritual being from above human beings. Capitalist states go into wars to profit their capitalist class. Who would profit from war in a socialist country? I dare to claim that war and preparing for it is nothing but a burden in a socialist society, while in capitalism there is a social class benefitting from it because of its relations to the means of production. That (and the law of maximum profit, which is the supreme law of capitalism) is what makes capitalism, or more exactly the capitalist class, as predatory as it is.

[smithbrian86]

The point of a government is to perpetuate its own existence, it often views the opposing ideology as a threat to its existence and then conflict ensues.....

Brian Smith

[Secession]

The point of a government is to perpetuate its own existence, it often views the opposing ideology as a threat to its existence and then conflict ensues.....

Brian Smith

I think countries act like people, since they're made up of people, so the antagonism comes because each country will have a skewed view of the other country - it is necessary if you are capitalist to think of that as the best way, so you unconsciously perhaps ridicule the other, perhaps equally valid ways of life rather than doubt yourself. A government is supposed to give the impression that it knows what to do about stuff, so of course 'our' government has to know more than 'their' government, else we'd be stupid. No-one wants to believe that, so we are happy to believe just about anything else.

[Gothmog]

According to the book Power Kills by RJ Rummel the opposite is true. Though his basis is liberal democracy vs "nondemocracies". Which I am correlating to relative capitalism vs relative socialism.

-You´re quoting one of the biggest charlatains and history falsifiers we´ve ever seen, but let us examine his arguments. The first mistake you commits is to equal democracy with capitalism and no democracy with socialism. Capitalism is quite compatible with dictatorships.
btw: Rummel´s scholarship is so reliable that he estimates that 39 million people died in Soviet labor camps, while archival evidence points to 2 million!

Here's his definition of liberal democracy "By democracy is meant liberal democracy, where those who hold power are elected in competitive elections with secret ballot and wide franchise (loosely understood as including at least 2/3rds of adult males) where there is freedom of speech, religion, and organization; and a constitutional framework of law to which the government is subordinate and that guarantees equal rights."

-Hmmm.....in Rummels´s wonderful world, we can have "democracy" when suffrage is restricted to 1/3 of adult population. And, of course, democracy is compatible with slavery, if less than 1/3 of adults are slaves. How BIASED the very Rummel notion of democracy is. According to him, of course, Germany and Austria in 1918 were democracies, because they fulfilled his requisites.

Now some of his conclusions:
"If one defines an international war as any military engagement in which 1,000 or more were killed then there were 33 wars, 353 pairs of nations... engaged in such wars between 1816 and 1991. None were between 2 democracies, 155 pairs involved a democracy and a nondemocracy, and 198 involved 2 nondemocracies fighting each other."

-Given his biased notion of democracy, he could only reach that interesting conclusion. But what about WWI? Actually, if he had used a more strict definition for democracy (for instance, demanding universal suffrage), he would have better suppport for his arguments. But still, we would have a trouble with this, because, when you demand universal suffrage, there would be no democracies before early 1900´s, and very few democracies until the 30´s.....so it would nor be surprising that relatively small numbers of wars involved democracies. This has more to do with random probability than with the peaceful nature of democracies. Despite all his bias, Rummel still have a point. It´s dificult for a democracy to mobilize its public opinion against another one. However, democracies still can fight wars of agression against non democracies and use covert actions against other democratic systems (see US vs. Guatemala in 1954 or Chile in 1973). And the history of colonialism proves that democracies can be as cruel as non democracies (see the Belgian colonization in Congo, for instance)

Now on to why "We can't all just get along". Capitalism is about private voluntary agreements between individuals, its pluralism and incentive structure produce immense wealth, and a prosperous middle class.

-Capitalism actually involves a lot of coercion and the use of state apparatus to enforce property rights. And it not always produce immense wealth. Actually peripheral capitalist countries are quite poor, and more than 40% of people living in capitalist countries survive with less than US$2/day.

Due to the incentive structure of communism not much wealth is created, people work only as much as they are forced to(we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us). Without a market and the individual thought of millions of owners to direct production, what is produced tends to not be what is most needed. It's just impossible for a central authority to know what's needed and to change the "plan" every hour to accomodate changing needs in every aspect of the economy.

-Well, both capitalism and communism relies largely on a "stick and carrot" strategy to incentive production. In capitalism, we have a bigger stick (loss of employment), and also a biger carrot (freedom to establish its business). However, communism was able to achieve impressive economic growth until late 60´s, and this suggests that lack of markets and private property was not the main trouble, since communism always lacked those "incentives". I personally believe that what led to the downfall of USSR were: 1-A repressive state wich prevented the flux of information that was necessary for technological advance of the society 2-A politics of self sufficiency and autharchy, which prevented the USSR from building reserves of strong currency and also prevented them from having their own strong currency and 3-Excessive militarization.

Without a market responsive to the needs of society, there are only 2 ways to supply the needs: charity from the outside, or enlarge the empire, take over a nation that has what you need.

-Here we have BIG history falsification, in the classical Rummel style.
Where is the falsification?
1-Capitalist countries, not communist ones, build empires. All the colonialist powers in the 1800´s were capitalist countries. No communist countries ever built colonies.
2-Communist imperialism was political and not economic. Actually, the Soviet puppet states were heavily subsidized by USSR (look at USSR relation with Cuba, for instance), and unlike capitalist colonies, acted as a drain for Sovier resources. On Soviet expansionism, it established puppets in Eastern Europe, but only incorporated to its own territory nations who were already part of czarist Russia (unlike, for instance, the USA)
-The opposite is true. Rosa Luxembourg, in his book "The accumulation of Capital" argues that capitalism needs a constant expansion to non capitalist countries in order to expand its markets, so capitalism wouldn´t be able to coexist with pre capitalist societies (she wrote his book before 1917 an so didn´t deal with the question of compatibility of capitalism and socialism)

[Gothmog]

Ok, what I mean is does anyone have any idea why, If country A is say... Capitalist, and Country B is say... Communist, why can't they all just get along? Is it some fundamental rift between these economic models that will always cause these two countries to be on a collision course, or has politics just gotten in the way. I'm assuming the countries are roughly equal in size, population, prosperity, and tech. level. Hell, lets even assume culture is in the same ballpark.

Now, I already know all the "Imperialistic, Capaitalist, evil bastards...blah, blah, blah" so please spare me the "if the capitalists weren't greedy" rhetoric and give me an honest opinion. Lets assume we're talking about theoretical countries here like say Capitalistville, and Communistheim, Shall we? I'm not loooking for: Well the USSR was just evil or the US is just evil and that's why it'll never work. I'm wondering is their some basic principle aside from the obvious economic models that would prevent these two from being allies or even good friends. And yes I know this is an idealistic question and I know this model is somewhat overly simplistic but hopefully you get the idea...?

I guess the basis for this is that if you could use a magic paintbrush and wipe away McCarthyism from our past and whatever is equal to that in the USSRs past would we still have had to have been enemies? Or failing that would each country automatically have assumed that any other country with the other's economic model has to be an enemy?

-Hmmmmm..let us forget that Capitalism vs Communism thing and change the focus of the discussion to: can capitalism coexist with capitalism? The history of capitalism is one of unending conflict for markets and colonies. It was only after 1945 that there was relative peace between capitalist countries because the USSR put a serious threat to capitalism as a whole, and the central capitalist countries united themselves against their common foe. Still, the conflict was relatively peaceful (as compared with WW1 and WW2, of course) and both sides opted for proxy wars instead of open conflict. The USSR gone, what will happen? It seems we will have growing disagreement between USA and Europe, while China will become a capitalist superpower. Will it led to military conflict? I believe it won´t, since the nuclear weapons make war a not very profitable activity.
-I changed the focus of discussion just to point that war is not mainy the result of diference of political systems, but the result of diference of interests between the ruling classes of two countries. It´s, however, dificult for democracies to make wars one each other, however, who knows what will happen in the future?