Is the US fucked?

[madd0ct0r]

The USA did not collapse because of inefficient bureaucracy; in fact, it would be difficult to argue that its bureaucracy was any more inefficient than the Republic of China' various bureaucracies. Nor did it collapse because of jingoistic paranoia; if anything, it was strongest during the height of jingoistic paranoia. These claims of yours are hardly objective "historical facts".

In reality, the USA collapsed because of a series of sweeping political reforms that were desired by a substantial portion of the population for various reasons, and which one administration allowed to the point that it could no longer control them. It's also worth noting that many of the people who desired these reforms did not actually receive the improvements in living standard that they hoped for: this is one of the dirty secrets of the miracle of America. Millionaires in one part, people eating dirt in other parts of the country.

If the USA had not reformed, it would have only continued to be gradually outpaced, outcompeted, and out diversifed by the East. As such, the Americas likely would have continued to diminish in international significance while only giving China and the Eastern world in general a further excuse to continue nuclear escalation and bully the Europeans and their "Social-Liberal" allies farther into a marginalized corner of the world and global economy.

Childish? maybe, but still far too easy.

Knobby's "RED" Communisim (ie, a planned economy) could work more effeciently (ie less dead weight lossess) given near perfect information and uncorruptable administrators. Ahh, for the leninbots...

I've a personal feeling that it's probably easier to attempt on a small scale too - Cuba being a fine example. (red rag to a bull?)



The USA's time as sole superpower is passing. China has more honour students then America HAS students. India has both the momentum and agility of an elephant. ASEAN is climbing hard, and the EU certainly isn't loosing ground.


That said, China still has tremendous problems to overcome. The rural poor are increasingly angry and the new generation of city rich kids aren't always signing up to the liberty for growth swap - as far as they're concerned, the growth is going to happen anyway.

Vietnam too, to the point I'm half expecting a quiet colour revolution, or a mere instigation of two party democracy within the next five years.

The USA isn't a failing state, but it's having to cope with a similar change of mindset britain underwent when they gave up the empire. The world no longer revolves around it.

[TheKwas]

If the Soviet Union had not reformed, it would have only continued to be gradually outpaced, outcompeted, and out diversifed by the West.

The Soviet Union was running into a wall in regards to total factor productivity (that's the z in the solow growth model), but by no means were the only reforms total collapse of the state enterprises. The Soviet Union could have retained its same basic structure with generally mild reforms to improve productivity and still been a giant relative on the world stage (especially with the economic clusterfuck western nations are going through at the moment). Hell, it's argued that only if the Soviet Union had survived a few more years the rise of Information technology and the Internet would have provided a huge boost to its productivity (at least relative to the west, where the internet's impact on productivity has largely been invisible).

Whether or not such a Soviet system would be classified as 'Red' Communism in your mind, I have no clue. You can classify anything as anything when you make up your own categories.

Furthermore, the Soviet Union doesn't have to 'win' some sort of war with America any more than modern russia would have to win a war with America. The USSR gave up on influencing world revolution long before it's collapse. It would just have to be able to protect its own interests, and I don't see any reason why it couldn't to a similar degree it was in the 80s. Or even in a future where the Soviet Union is outpaced by America, nations can still exist without being top dogs: look at Cuba, Iran, and a whole bunch of other nations with interests opposite to America.

This isn't a history forum.

No, but this is a Science and logic forum where a thread has gone off topic into historical matters. A similar degree of intellectual honestly and integrity should be expected.

[frogcurry]

I think we could also point out that there is no record of successful anarchistic/libertarian societies either (Somalia not generally being considered a success), yet that is the general direction the US is heading in right now thanks to existing political trends, hence the concern that it is being driven into a ditch.

What on earth are you referring to when you say the US is heading towards an anarchistic/libertarian society? Can you explain that, and maybe refer to a social change or government policy that gives an example of the sort of trend you are talking about?

Currently I get the impression the USA is in the process of a trend towards greater Federalisation and government oversight in almost all areas at the moment (ie. due to the banking trust issues, state administration issues such as that of California's budget), which would appear to be diametrically opposite of anarchistic, and also quite different from libertarian.

A real life example of soviet inefficiency from a colleagues personal experience: in the late 80's his employer, a British engineering company, won a contract to design and manage the construction of new production facilities to the Soviets for one of their oil facilities. The Soviet representatives involved in the project were Army Engineers, and as a result they had a diluted professional background (less actual engineering experience) and so weren't as knowledgeable on the design engineering principles as the westerners (Plus this gave the sublime moment of a 40-yearold Brummie engineer getting saluted by his Soviet equivalent in a meeting...).

[Knobbyboy88]

Fuck, that quoting is seriously butchered.

Yeah, sorry about that...My mistake. I edited it out though.

True. But a sharp drop in life expectancy is an indication that the overclass problem worsened considerably after the fall of communism. This is not to say that communism is better, but that improperly regulated capitalism is worse than communism.

No one ever said that economic transitions were easy. The implosion of the Soviet "central economy" was always going to have some negative effects. Considering the sheer amount of territory (and all of the heavy industry, population centers, military hardware, natural resources, trade centers, etca that went along with it) the Russians surrendered after the fall of the USSR, it is nearly impossible to see how this development couldn't have been a major blow.

However, it should be noted that, in light of recent events, it looks like Russia is finally getting its economy back in stride. They should be able to achieve far more economically under their current system than they could have achieved under Communism.

I think we could also point out that there is no record of successful anarchistic/libertarian societies either (Somalia not generally being considered a success), yet that is the general direction the US is heading in right now thanks to existing political trends

Whose talking about anarchistic libertarianism? "Anarchist" utopias can exist only in the minds of such unrealistic dreamers as Noam Chomsky and Ayn Rand. The state may not be ideal, but it is ultimately necessary.

Besides, I would hardly say that this is the direction that the US is currently headed. The "Neo-Liberal" revolution that ocurred in the late 1970s has all but spent its potency. Things are currently swinging back to a regulation oriented model.

According to Immanuel Wallerstein, this is more or less how the "Capitalist" system works. The market swings back and forth between one extreme and another as Capitalism's cyclical "up" and "down" periods give rise to the "blame game" and flare reactionary tempers. The Great Depression sent the Western World into a "statist" Keynesian frenzy, whereas the economic collapse of the 1970s gave rise to the recent "Neo-Liberal" trend that has been all the rage for the last few decades.

No is willing to admit that "recessions" are simply an inevitable fact of life in a market oriented economy, and so they tend to be used as weapons of political warfare.

How do you arrive at this evaluation?

Because we more or less know what's going on in China at the moment. They have opened their borders to the western media and international organiztions. The Chinese government simply isn't able to be as repressive as it was in the past (secret police spiriting people away in the middle of the night, seizure of property without cause, etca, etca).

Sure, things are still bad in China, but the government has certainly "mellowed out" to a certain extent.

Knobby's "RED" Communisim (ie, a planned economy) could work more effeciently (ie less dead weight lossess) given near perfect information and uncorruptable administrators. Ahh, for the leninbots...

I've a personal feeling that it's probably easier to attempt on a small scale too - Cuba being a fine example. (red rag to a bull?)

By "Red" Communism I mean Marxist/Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, or anything derivative of these movements. All governments to adopt these ideological systems have utilized the same basic economic policies and faced the same societal problems. That is the only reason that I'm clumping them together.

Besides, I would hardly say that Cuba is even doing all that well as a "Communist" nation. They've basically had to whore themselves out to Europe and Canada as a Caribbean beach resort just to make ends meat. They have also implimented quite a few "Free Market" reforms since 1992.

Yeah, yeah...I know "Embargo is eviiilllll RAWR." However, it should be noted that if you actually look at Cuba's economic situation, the embargo hasn't relly had that much of an effect. Castro could basically rely on the Soviets to provide him with anything his economy needed during the Cold War, and (as I've already pointed out) his regime has learned to make due with other sources of economic capital in the decade since the fall of the USSR.

On the whole, I'd say that Cuba has pretty handily sold out its "Red" Leftist values.

Furthermore, the Soviet Union doesn't have to 'win' some sort of war with America any more than modern russia would have to win a war with America. The USSR gave up on influencing world revolution long before it's collapse. It would just have to be able to protect its own interests, and I don't see any reason why it couldn't to a similar degree it was in the 80s. Or even in a future where the Soviet Union is outpaced by America, nations can still exist without being top dogs: look at Cuba, Iran, and a whole bunch of other nations with interests opposite to America.

Am I correct in assuming that you would have peferred that the USSR end up as a mistrusted and economically stunted international pariah like Cuba or North Korea rather than go through market reform?

There is absolutely no doubt about it. The USSR had been in a rather definite decline for decades before Gorbachev's reforms. Their allies were abandoning them left and right, and they were falling increasing behind the West in terms of economic productivity, science, and technology. I can't think of any reason why these trends would have reversed themselves if the USSR had lasted any longer.

In fact, the only real difference I could see between the USSR in such a situation and modern Cuba or North Korea would be the presence of all of those nuclear weapons in the Soviet arsenal. Come to think of it, this is actually a rather frightening thought. lol

The Soviet Union could have retained its same basic structure with generally mild reforms to improve productivity and still been a giant relative on the world stage (especially with the economic clusterfuck western nations are going through at the moment). Hell, it's argued that only if the Soviet Union had survived a few more years the rise of Information technology and the Internet would have provided a huge boost to its productivity (at least relative to the west, where the internet's impact on productivity has largely been invisible).

I'm pretty skeptical about the chances of something like this working.

"Mild reform" likely wouldn't have gone over well with the Russian people. Even if it had, I doubt that there would have been any going back for the Soviet leadership once they had opened the flood gates for market reform. They likely would have simply found themselves gradually being dragged into "free market" Capitalism just as the Chinese and Vietnamese governments have.

Once you throw internet access for the average citizen into the mix, I can't see this fundamental change in society doing anything but accelerating.

(especially with the economic clusterfuck western nations are going through at the moment).

There was a fairly massive global recession in the 1970s as well. It didn't accomplish much in changing the overall "balance of power" in the Cold War.

Actually, come to think of it...This downturn (along with a few other events) was probably what gave the Soviets the idea that they could get away with invading Afghanistan in 1979. Of course, I think we all know how that turned out.

No, but this is a Science and logic forum where a thread has gone off topic into historical matters. A similar degree of intellectual honestly and integrity should be expected.

Which is exacty why I'm not going out of my way to be intellectually dishonest here.

[Darth Wong]

I think we could also point out that there is no record of successful anarchistic/libertarian societies either (Somalia not generally being considered a success), yet that is the general direction the US is heading in right now thanks to existing political trends, hence the concern that it is being driven into a ditch.

What on earth are you referring to when you say the US is heading towards an anarchistic/libertarian society? Can you explain that, and maybe refer to a social change or government policy that gives an example of the sort of trend you are talking about?

It's been on this course for 30 years, and I think it's premature to say that this course has been reversed because of the last six months.

[Darth Wong]

No one ever said that economic transitions were easy. The implosion of the Soviet "central economy" was always going to have some negative effects. Considering the sheer amount of territory (and all of the heavy industry, population centers, military hardware, natural resources, trade centers, etca that went along with it) the Russians surrendered after the fall of the USSR, it is nearly impossible to see how this development couldn't have been a major blow.

However, it should be noted that, in light of recent events, it looks like Russia is finally getting its economy back in stride. They should be able to achieve far more economically under their current system than they could have achieved under Communism.

Perhaps, but their first step is just to get all of their people back up to the same standard that they had under communism. Millions of them are still not there.

Whose talking about anarchistic libertarianism? "Anarchist" utopias can exist only in the minds of such unrealistic dreamers as Noam Chomsky and Ayn Rand. The state may not be ideal, but it is ultimately necessary.

Yes, but the bizarre socio-political notion of libertarianism still holds powerful sway in the American consciousness, and I am not at all convinced that six months of emergency government intervention will change that mindset after 30 years of continuous dominance.

Besides, I would hardly say that this is the direction that the US is currently headed. The "Neo-Liberal" revolution that ocurred in the late 1970s has all but spent its potency. Things are currently swinging back to a regulation oriented model.

I'll believe that when I see it. So far, there's a lot of talk about "oversight" and precious little action. And the society in general still has this "freedom" nonsense in its minds about deregulation.

How do you arrive at this evaluation?

Because we more or less know what's going on in China at the moment. They have opened their borders to the western media and international organiztions. The Chinese government simply isn't able to be as repressive as it was in the past (secret police spiriting people away in the middle of the night, seizure of property without cause, etca, etca).

Sure, things are still bad in China, but the government has certainly "mellowed out" to a certain extent.

They're still pretty arbitrary in the provinces. In the cities where foreign journalists stay, they are trying to make nice. In the provinces, officials can act almost with impunity. As you say, that may change. I would thank modern telecommunications technology for that rather than capitalism, however.

[Stark]

The idea that regulation ran out of steam in the 70s is totally absurd to anyone who didn't sleep through the 80s.

[Knobbyboy88]

The idea that regulation ran out of steam in the 70s is totally absurd to anyone who didn't sleep through the 80s.

I said that the "Neo-Liberal" revolution started in the 1970s, not that it ended in the 1970s.

In any case, things will probably swing back towards regulation for the time being (until we hit another inevitable economic speed bump and everyone goes batshit insane all over again that is). lol

[TheKwas]

Am I correct in assuming that you would have peferred that the USSR end up as a mistrusted and economically stunted international pariah like Cuba or North Korea rather than go through market reform?

I'm not sure where you get that idea, so no that's a correct assumption. I would have preferred a mixed reform, probably fairly similar to China's, where the state apparatus doesn't fall apart. I'm not sure how mixed a reform can be before you jump up and declare it to be the downfall of 'red' communism, but generally speaking the same basic structure of Soviet life could have remained relatively intact AND you would have avoided almost 2 lost decades and numerous civil wars that came with the collapse of the Soviet government.


Just about any outcome would have been better than the collapse that Russia experienced with the fall of the Soviet government, and the Soviet system, for all its faults could have existed in any form as you still haven't made a real argument that it is fundamentally unsound: Only it is less productive than more market economies. I don't think I would ever argue a fully-planned economy is the best economic system.

I'm pretty skeptical about the chances of something like this working.

"Mild reform" likely wouldn't have gone over well with the Russian people. Even if it had, I doubt that there would have been any going back for the Soviet leadership once they had opened the flood gates for market reform. They likely would have simply found themselves gradually being dragged into "free market" Capitalism just as the Chinese and Vietnamese governments have.

China and Vietnam both still have much more regulated economies than most countries and are far from being truely 'free market' economies? I doubt the Soviets would go as far into reform as the Chinese or Vietnamese, as their state apparatuses were always more productive and efficient, but I would see them going down a similar direction much more gradually.

Which is exacty why I'm not going out of my way to be intellectually dishonest here.

Gross generalizations fits in with intellectual dishonesty in my books.

[Knobbyboy88]

I would have preferred a mixed reform, probably fairly similar to China's, where the state apparatus doesn't fall apart. I'm not sure how mixed a reform can be before you jump up and declare it to be the downfall of 'red' communism, but generally speaking the same basic structure of Soviet life could have remained relatively intact AND you would have avoided almost 2 lost decades and numerous civil wars that came with the collapse of the Soviet government.

I'm sorry, but any reform which included the reintroduction of private property, private industry, and free trade within the USSR while fostering the growth of a "consumerist" culture would have effectively spelt the end for any delusions of Marxist "Communism" the nations behind the iron curtain may have held. A "free market" Communist society is a fundamental contradiction in terms.

Additionally, it is unrealistic to expect the Soviet government to have been able to grant its citizens some democratic freedoms while denying them others. The Russian people were already clamoring for reform at this point, and granting them a little leeway would have simply thrown fuel on these fires. If you give people an inch, they tend to take a mile.

Don't get me wrong. If the USSR could have pulled off a level of cultural and political reform similar to what we are seeing in China today, I would have been all for it. It would have made for a rather tense international situation and prolonged the Cold War (let's face it, the desire to "save face" is going to ensure that forty years of mutual hatred and fiery rhetoric don't go away overnight), but it ultimately would have been a far more favorable outcome for Eastern Europe and Russia in general.

However, as history has already demonstrated, this simply couldn't happen in the Soviet Union. Largely through their own incompetence and the unrest this created in the Russian people, the leadership of the USSR had ensured that such positive development and reform was all but impossible.

and the Soviet system,

I don't think I would ever argue a fully-planned economy is the best economic system.

The "Soviet system" was "Red" Communism, and "Red" Communism directly advocated a fully planned "command" economy. As I have already pointed out, any move towards the "free market" would have directly contradicted these Marxist ideals and therefore changed the "Soviet system."

You are confusing economic systems with national governments.

China and Vietnam both still have much more regulated economies than most countries and are far from being truely 'free market' economies?

Vietnam might be a bit more regulated, but China's economy is actually far less regulated than our own in a lot of ways. This is exactly why we have been having such a problem with toxic materials in Chinese made products.

Yes, but the bizarre socio-political notion of libertarianism still holds powerful sway in the American consciousness,

Personally, I tend to be an advocate of less regulation and government involvement, but I do acknowledge that there is a definite need to preserve the "mixed market." Like it or not, a certain degree of state interventionism is required for the continued operation of society.

I would thank modern telecommunications technology for that rather than capitalism, however.

Well, by and large, the modern technology and media coverage came with the Capitalism.

[TheKwas]

You can introduce elements of market reform without going straight into a free-market economy, you know. Perestroika in it's original form was never meant to totally transfer the Soviet Union to a free-market economy, but rather simply introduce certain market reforms. It's not a black-white dilemma as you seem to think it is. Certain industries could still be largely controlled and regulated by the government, and others could be left up largely to market forces.

Had Gorborchev introduced just Perestroika without Glasnost (or better yet, a more Chinese-looking perestroika that would focus on small-industries rather than large industries), and kept social collapse from occuring, we would probably still call the economy centrally planned. Just less so.

Also, make a distinction between what I would prefer, and what I would imagine would be possible in the Soviet Union. I'm essentially a Social democrat of the Nordic sort, so I like the market in many ways, but that doesn't mean I think the Soviet Union couldn't survive without massive market reforms like what we saw in the 90s.

[Duckie]

some random points

I would have preferred a mixed reform, probably fairly similar to China's, where the state apparatus doesn't fall apart. I'm not sure how mixed a reform can be before you jump up and declare it to be the downfall of 'red' communism, but generally speaking the same basic structure of Soviet life could have remained relatively intact AND you would have avoided almost 2 lost decades and numerous civil wars that came with the collapse of the Soviet government.

I'm sorry, but any reform which included the reintroduction of private property, private industry, and free trade within the USSR while fostering the growth of a "consumerist" culture would have effectively spelt the end for any delusions of Marxist "Communism" the nations behind the iron curtain may have held. A "free market" Communist society is a fundamental contradiction in terms.

Here

Read up before you continue to embarass yourself. Specifically, the posts by the man from poland about the existence of private property and private industry (no communist state has ever abolished private property in its entirety, for one. Just land ownership, and even that only sometimes, which you disingenuously associate with that). A 'free market' in a Communist society is only a contradiction if you insist that any government regulation of the free market makes the US not a Capitalist society.

and the Soviet system,

I don't think I would ever argue a fully-planned economy is the best economic system.

The "Soviet system" was "Red" Communism, and "Red" Communism directly advocated a fully planned "command" economy. As I have already pointed out, any move towards the "free market" would have directly contradicted these Marxist ideals and therefore changed the "Soviet system."

You are confusing economic systems with national governments.

Define "Red" Communism in comparision to other Communisms, or stop using that bloody term as a catchall charicature of the American gradeschool lessons on why America is better than Russia (which is where it feels like you have most of your information from). It makes no sense. What is Non-Red Communism in your definition?

China and Vietnam both still have much more regulated economies than most countries and are far from being truely 'free market' economies?

Vietnam might be a bit more regulated, but China's economy is actually far less regulated than our own in a lot of ways. This is exactly why we have been having such a problem with toxic materials in Chinese made products.

How exactly does this jive with your theory of "Red" Communism? Are you going to say that Chinese Communists are no true scotsman communists?

Yes, but the bizarre socio-political notion of libertarianism still holds powerful sway in the American consciousness,

Personally, I tend to be an advocate of less regulation and government involvement, but I do acknowledge that there is a definite need to preserve the "mixed market." Like it or not, a certain degree of state interventionism is required for the continued operation of society.

Aha, so by your own definitions the USA is not a Free Market society, because there's not a perfect Free Market. The US isn't a "Blue" Capitalist nation, because "Blue" Capitalism is defined by the free market, so any deviation from this is contrary to the ideological theory!

I would thank modern telecommunications technology for that rather than capitalism, however.

Well, by and large, the modern technology and media coverage came with the Capitalism.

Certainly, no non-capitalist has ever invented anything technological.

[Knobbyboy88]

Here

Read up before you continue to embarass yourself. Specifically, the posts by the man from poland about the existence of private property and private industry (no communist state has ever abolished private property in its entirety, for one.

I am well aware that the USSR and other Communist regimes allowed some economic freedoms. As I said before, "Red" Communism has always been a rather inconsistent and schizophrenic affair in this respect. In fact, this system probably made far more compromises than Marx would've been comfortable with.

However, it should be noted that the Soviet government still controlled the pursuit of profit and private industry with an iron fist and that "consumerism" was rather vehemently held in check. As such, the pretense of a Marxist/Communist society was still held in place.

Any move towards a more market oriented economic model as is currently seen in China, the United States, or even Europe's "Social Democracies" would have been a fundamental contradiction to the basic ideals of Marxism and therefore of "Red" Communism.

Just land ownership, and even that only sometimes, which you disingenuously associate with that). A 'free market' in a Communist society is only a contradiction if you insist that any government regulation of the free market makes the US not a Capitalist society.

Aha, so by your own definitions the USA is not a Free Market society, because there's not a perfect Free Market. The US isn't a "Blue" Capitalist nation, because "Blue" Capitalism is defined by the free market, so any deviation from this is contrary to the ideological theory!

What on Earth are you talking about?

There is a very simple text book definition of Marxism/Communism that I'm going off of here. Any system which endorses a privately driven "market" economy simply is not "Communism." It would be a fundamental contradiction of everything Marx taught.

Furthermore, when in the Hell did I say that anything regulated wasn't "Capitalist?" Don't raise straw men.

In any case, I think you need to brush up on your basic political philosophy. This is like Poli Sci 101 stuff here.

Define "Red" Communism in comparision to other Communisms, or stop using that bloody term as a catchall charicature of the American gradeschool lessons on why America is better than Russia (which is where it feels like you have most of your information from). It makes no sense. What is Non-Red Communism in your definition?

Marxist/Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, or anything derivative of these movements can all be thought of as being representative of "Red" Communism.

Honestly people...This isn't a difficult concept. Pretty much any "Communist" regime which existed during the Cold War can be grouped in with the "Red" movement. They all shared the same Soviet inspired point of origin.

How exactly does this jive with your theory of "Red" Communism? Are you going to say that Chinese Communists are no true scotsman communists?

You'd better believe it! No political scientist in their right mind would classify China as being a "Communist" nation at this point in time. They are a Capitalist nation which simply happens (for the time being at least) to be ruled over by a rather repressive overclass of bureaucrats who are little more than a relic of China's "Red" past.

Vietnam hasn't fully transitioned yet, and so it is a bit more iffy in this nation. However, they have transitioned far enough that any acussation of "Communism" would seem to be rather hypocritical.

Certainly, no non-capitalist has ever invented anything technological.

[/quote][/quote]

Then explain to me, Duckie, why we haven't seen a similar explosion of foreign media coverage or multi-media technology in places like Cuba or North Korea.

The simple fact of the matter is that the "Communist" leaders of these nations refuse to open their borders in such a fashion. They are able to do this because their economies are still centrally planned and this leads the populations of these nations to rely on the state for their basic needs. This fundamental dependency(the people have no freedom to seek out other competitors for their basic needs) ensures that the Communist governments of these nations are still powerful enough to block out most (if not all) outside cultural and political influence.

[TheKwas]

Marx said next to nothing about what 'communism' should look like, leaving it up to future socialists to deal with whatever circumstances they faced.

The basic programme that Marx did outline in the Communist manefesto is:

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Most of the above have been actually been implemented in most western, capitalist societies. I think all of the above, except the inherent tax, apply to china. That's not to say that China is communist, but rather that you can't go slinging around Marx's name if you don't know what he actually said.

Then explain to me, Duckie, why we haven't seen a similar explosion of foreign media coverage or multi-media technology in places like Cuba or North Korea.

...Why talk about just Cuba or North Korea? The Soviet Union had the most advanced space agency in the world for a good period of time, and provided their citizens with a level of technology that many 3rd world countries can only dream of.

[Samuel]

Only 2 and 5 have been adopted by most countries.

[TheKwas]

3 has been greatly improved on since Marx's day i believe? Either way, it's not considered a very radical idea even in Capitalist countries.
6 is partially true depending on the country. Japan for example has a fairly concentrated transport system, as does China I believe? Up until the 90s Canada, for example, had a big stake in Air Canada.
7 is partially true, but mostly wrong. Every industrial nation has a good portion of state-owned enterprises (or crown corporations). Depends on country.
8 is half true. Modern societies care much more about unemployment than governments in Marx's day, as illustrated by the main unemployment programs that exist.
9 simply isn't true.
10 is true in all western countries as far as I know.

Either way, the point was that Karl Marx said very little about what Knobby is calling 'red' communism. He talked primarily about issues of Capitalism and labour.

[Samuel]

3 has never been true. There have been inheritance taxes, but no total confiscation.

6 varies. After all, the highways system is government even in the US. However it refers to all, which is certainly not true in any non-communist country- that requires them to own all the transportation and communication systems. Most only own a part and in areas that the market won't provide

7

the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Even back in the day the state owned its own companies. The second half... lets just say communists and agricultural policy do not mix well.

8 doesn't mean what you think it means.

Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

It means people are required to work, not that they will be given jobs.

10

Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production,

was only achieved in Cuba although other communist countries may have pulled it off.

If Marx hadn't made his statements absolutes or so crazy, the whole thing would describe social democracy. As it is it doesn't work.

Of course even the USSR didn't follow him- they were Marxist-Leninist.

[Simon_Jester]

Re: Samuel:
The USSR came a lot closer than any democratic country did, though... with reason.

Marx said next to nothing about what 'communism' should look like, leaving it up to future socialists to deal with whatever circumstances they faced.
The basic programme that Marx did outline in the Communist manefesto is:

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Most of the above have been actually been implemented in most western, capitalist societies. I think all of the above, except the inherent tax, apply to china. That's not to say that China is communist, but rather that you can't go slinging around Marx's name if you don't know what he actually said.

Really? I count...(2), sometimes (5), though the state rarely claims an exclusive monopoly, and (10). I'd say no more than a quarter of Marx's points are common in "most western, capitalist societies." Am I missing a lot here?

(1) isn't happening any time soon.
(2) is pretty common, though some nations have an overall tax scheme that is de facto flat or regressive.
(3) is rare; people can definitely inherit property from their parents in the US and in most of Europe. Inheritance is often taxed. The idea of a 100% inheritance tax (which would amount to abolishing inheritance) is generally thought to be unfair and confiscatory.
(4) isn't happening soon, at least with respect to emigrants. Rebels aren't as much of a problem today as they were in the 1840s, I guess.
(5) can happen to a varying extent, though the national bank rarely has exclusive rights to lend money. They may be a central bank, but it doesn't have as much power as Marx would like.
(6) "The means of communication and transport" are by no means owned by the state in most Western societies; cell phones and personal automobiles come to mind. The state generally maintains the roads and often runs rail and mass transit networks, but it seldom places any restrictions on the use of the roads except for traffic regulations to make sure people don't crash into each other. Likewise for communications.
(7), by and large, just hasn't happened. The means of production, of industrial manufacture, are rarely state-owned. Sometimes, yes, but not often except in countries that elect unusually socialist parties. Compared to the level of nationalization seen in the USSR, effectively nothing is nationalized. The cultivation of wastelands and improvement of soil has happened, but it's a matter of a lot less importance now than it was in the 1840s.
(8)... I'm not even sure what "liability to labor" and "industrial armies" mean. If "industrial armies" mean unions, yes, they're common. If they mean regimented state-run bodies of laborers, they're not.
(9) is just ridiculous, and I think it's a good illustration of how Marx's "scientific" predictions about how history was going to evolve weren't very good. At the time when he published his most famous works, he actually thought that was important and likely to happen!
(10) is, as you say, true pretty much throughout the west.

[Knobbyboy88]

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

These are by far the most important tenants of Marxist Communism. The Chinese have effectively abandoned them in their entirety (I'm not totally sure about the rural areas, but this is certainly true in the cities, service industry, and industrialized portions of the Chinese economy). Any economic system which invests the means of production behind society in the hands of private individuals (i.e. the bourgeoisie) rather than the allegedly "proletarian" run State simply is not Communist.

There is no way around this fact. Marx's whole philosophy revolved around this one central concept. Any Soviet state which adopted such "market" oriented measures into its economy would quite simply no longer be "Communist."

Most of the above have been actually been implemented in most western, capitalist societies.

To be fair, most of these ideas were not unique to Marx. He simply built off of the ideas of prior generations of "utopian" dreamers and added his own "statist" spin to the subject matter.

In any case, I never denied that "Marxism"(regardless of its rather obvious and crippling flaws) has fostered quite a bit of change within the Capitalist system. However, as I have already pointed out, any society which does not endorse the the abolition of private property and the consolidation of the means of production in the hands of the state simply is not and never will be "Communist."

You are talking about "Progressivism" and "Social Democracy" (which are Capitalist but can be flawed in their own rights), not "Communism."

The Soviet Union had the most advanced space agency in the world for a good period of time, and provided their citizens with a level of technology that many 3rd world countries can only dream of.

How is this relevant? The level of technology or media sophistication within a given nation doesn't matter if the people in these nations are denied access to it or fed doctored information.

The simple fact of the matter is that in order to impliment such controls over technology and the media, the government of a nation has to be able to exert a certain level of control over its society. It is quite easy for a "Communist" regime to exert such control as the very nature of the system effectively ensures that such a government would own and operate the media. Furthermore, it would be difficult for the citizens of such a regime to force change in the system as they are basically dependent upon the good graces of the state for their basic needs. The state is basically free to be as repressive as it wishes to be.

By opening up their economy to private industry and allowing private/foreign products and media services to compete with those provided by the state, the Chinese government has essentially surrendered its monopoly on social and domestic power. As such, it has been more or less forced to reign in its repression in order to maintain control, keep the people happy, and ensure that foreign criticism of its methods is kept at a minimum. Of course, the bureaucrats running the Chinese government hate to lose their power and are desperately trying to retain some semblence of the dominance they once held. However, I would say that they are ultimately fighting a losing battle. Once you open the flood gates for reform, there simply is no going back.

This is exactly why partial reform in the Soviet Union would have likely failed.

This isn't to say that dictatorships can't exist in capitalist societies. They simply require the exertion of a lot more direct military force in order to be successful. As Pinochet proved and the Chinese government is currently demonstrating, such dominance can be rather difficult to maintain over extended periods of time (especially when the people living in these nations are well aware that less repressive forms of government can be had elsewhere).

[TheKwas]

3: That's what I meant by 'improved upon'. Nonetheless I won't argue further than that and concede the point.

6: He refers to 'the' means of transportation and communication, which would have largely been trains and telegraphs. Many modern countries have those industries fairly centralized. I wasn't sure before, but a quick google search indicates that VIA rail in Canada is a crown corporation, and telecommunications were ran by governments in many parts of the world for a good portion of time. In Saskatchewan we still have 'Sasktel' (phone company) as a crown corporation.

7. What proportion of industry was owned by the government then relative to now? I know there were large corporations that dealt primarly with trading and colonization, but I thought that most domestic production was done by private firms. If I'm mistaken I'll concede the point.

8. Conceded.

10. Also conceded in regards to industrial-combination part.

[TheKwas]

There is no way around this fact. Marx's whole philosophy revolved around this one central concept. Any Soviet state which adopted such "market" oriented measures into its economy would quite simply no longer be "Communist."

I'm not sure how many times I have to say this, but you can introduce some basic market reform without abandoning a planned economy. Perestroika was never meant to abandon central planning, only modify it.

[Knobbyboy88]

I'm not sure how many times I have to say this, but you can introduce some basic market reform without abandoning a planned economy. Perestroika was never meant to abandon central planning, only modify it.

Once again, ANY move towards the reinstation of the bourgeoisie class to Soviet society would have been explicitly anti-Communist and anti-Marx.

You can't have it both ways here.

[Knobbyboy88]

Quote:
I'm not sure how many times I have to say this, but you can introduce some basic market reform without abandoning a planned economy. Perestroika was never meant to abandon central planning, only modify it.


Once again, ANY move towards the reinstation of the bourgeoisie class to Soviet society would have been explicitly anti-Communist and anti-Marx.

You can't have it both ways here.

Ghetto edit:

What you are talking about here would be akin to "atheist religion" or some other such contradictory nonsense.

It simply doesn't work. It is either one or it is the other.

[Samuel]

New Economic Policy by Lenin in 1921 disagrees with that assessment.

[Knobbyboy88]

New Economic Policy by Lenin in 1921 disagrees with that assessment.

You mean miserably failed attempted economic policy by Lenin in 1921.

As I said before, "Red" Communism was always a rather schizophrenic system (largely due to the fact that Marx gave them next to nothing of actual substance to work with). You often get the impression that they were simply makings things up as they went along...with predictably mixed results.

However, the fact of the matter here remains that Marxist "Communism" and private enterprise are simply incompatible concepts from any ideological perspective.