Socialism or two-tier capitalism?

[DaraghM]

The nicest places to live are often those that combine the best of socialist and capitalist policies. Take a look at Scandinavia... yes, I know the taxes are high, but you get a lot of bang for your (tax) buck.

In fairness, the kind of regulated capitalism that the Scandinavian countries employ, is nothing like the 'socialism' being debated here, nor would I think Marxists hold it up as any kind of example of how to proceed.

But you do raise an interesting point and those of us who believe in Capitalist economics (that is to say, economics that actually work) should recognise it. The market is a tool, not a god. Social welfare cannot always be reduced to profit and loss, and the market cannot be the arbiter of everything.

[ibis]

The nicest places to live are often those that combine the best of socialist and capitalist policies. Take a look at Scandinavia... yes, I know the taxes are high, but you get a lot of bang for your (tax) buck.

In fairness, the kind of regulated capitalism that the Scandinavian countries employ, is nothing like the 'socialism' being debated here, nor would I think Marxists hold it up as any kind of example of how to proceed.

But you do raise an interesting point and those of us who believe in Capitalist economics (that is to say, economics that actually work) should recognise it. The market is a tool, not a god. Social welfare cannot always be reduced to profit and loss, and the market cannot be the arbiter of everything.

Very true. Actually, few of us are particularly in favour of "capitalism" that socialists argue against, either. Mostly, we're in favour of market economics where that is the most appropriate model, state ownership where it isn't, and a limited redistribution of wealth.

Few of us, I think, would wish to go back to the left of this graph, where most wealth was completely unearned.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Most African states became "socialist" after independence, and remained "socialist" through the 50's to 80's.

Give us a bloody break. Do you seriously think the Brits and their allies would tolerate socialism emerging in any of the former colonies after independence. 21 countries invaded Russia after the Russian revolution. Imperialism would have done exactly the same in any African country if it posed a threat to the capitalist order in these countries. And, for example, just because the right-wing communalist government in Sri Lanka calls the country 'The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka' does not make it the case.

[ibis]

Most African states became "socialist" after independence, and remained "socialist" through the 50's to 80's.

Give us a bloody break. Do you seriously think the Brits and their allies would tolerate socialism emerging in any of the former colonies after independence. 21 countries invaded Russia after the Russian revolution. Imperialism would have done exactly the same in any African country if it posed a threat to the capitalist order in these countries. And, for example, just because the right-wing communalist government in Sri Lanka calls the country 'The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka' does not make it the case.

See the quotes? See the later post?

One of the saddest things about socialism is the apparent complete sense of humour failure that accompanies it.

[Jolly Red Giant]

ask the 3 billion people on the plant, who live on less than $2 a day, how credible capitalism is!

Hmmm, they would be primarily concentrated in countries such as

Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan - All former Soviet Republics.
China - 'nuff said.
The Horn of Africa - self-declared 'Marxist-Socialist states' in the 80s.

and on.

Actually 35 out of the 36 poorest countries are in Africa (the odd one out being Haiti)

Tajikistan is the lowest ranked of the ex-Stalinist countries you mention - No. 122 out of 177 countries.

What you actually don't say is that the poverty that has ravaged the former Stalinist Republics occurred after the re-establishment of capitalism in the early 1990's. The rampant poverty that exists now was cause by capitalism not the distorted planned economy pre-1989.

[ibis]

ask the 3 billion people on the plant, who live on less than $2 a day, how credible capitalism is!

Hmmm, they would be primarily concentrated in countries such as

Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan - All former Soviet Republics.
China - 'nuff said.
The Horn of Africa - self-declared 'Marxist-Socialist states' in the 80s.

and on.

Actually 35 out of the 36 poorest countries are in Africa (the odd one out being Haiti)

Tajikistan is the lowest ranked of the ex-Stalinist countries you mention - No. 122 out of 177 countries.

What you actually don't say is that the poverty that has ravaged the former Stalinist Republics occurred after the re-establishment of capitalism in the early 1990's. The rampant poverty that exists now was cause by capitalism not the distorted planned economy pre-1989.

Or some might say, by the badly planned and managed transition to capitalism - which has been managed well elsewhere (NZ, China).

[DOD]

Socialism is a discredited ideology and anyone who still supports it is by definition an idiot.

[Jolly Red Giant]

I would think that the 'accumulation of wealth' would be pretty high on the list of priorities of the world's poor. But lets engage with this shall we. How will Socialism alleviate poverty? How, if wealth is simply to be taken from its creators and redistributed, will we encourage people to create it (and yes, wealth is created. The basic cables, electrodes, diodes etc. that make up the infrastructure of the internet are far, FAR, lesser in value than the commercial applications of the internet itself.)

Socialism is not solely about the re-distribution of wealth - in fact it is about the creation of wealth at a substantially faster rate than capitalism is capable of doing at the moment and has been for well over 100 years on a worldwide basis.

As for I having never been tried or doomed to failure. The first person to outline that socialism could not be built in Russia was Lenin. The Bolsheviks intention was to maintain workers power until a revolution occurred inan advance capitalist country in Western Europe (nearly happened in Germany and Italy post WW1). Russian society was too backward to facilitated the development of socialism - the material conditions didn't exist. The failure of revolution in the West allowed for the rise of Stalinism. Socialism can and could only be built when the material conditions exist.

[DaraghM]

ask the 3 billion people on the plant, who live on less than $2 a day, how credible capitalism is!

Hmmm, they would be primarily concentrated in countries such as

Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan - All former Soviet Republics.
China - 'nuff said.
The Horn of Africa - self-declared 'Marxist-Socialist states' in the 80s.

and on.

Actually 35 out of the 36 poorest countries are in Africa (the odd one out being Haiti)

Tajikistan is the lowest ranked of the ex-Stalinist countries you mention - No. 122 out of 177 countries.

What you actually don't say is that the poverty that has ravaged the former Stalinist Republics occurred after the re-establishment of capitalism in the early 1990's. The rampant poverty that exists now was cause by capitalism not the distorted planned economy pre-1989.

Tell me JRG, what WERE living standards like in the Central Asian SSRs prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union? Here's a hint: they didn't have far to fall on the list when they became independent.

[DaraghM]

I would think that the 'accumulation of wealth' would be pretty high on the list of priorities of the world's poor. But lets engage with this shall we. How will Socialism alleviate poverty? How, if wealth is simply to be taken from its creators and redistributed, will we encourage people to create it (and yes, wealth is created. The basic cables, electrodes, diodes etc. that make up the infrastructure of the internet are far, FAR, lesser in value than the commercial applications of the internet itself.)

Socialism is not solely about the re-distribution of wealth - in fact it is about the creation of wealth at a substantially faster rate than capitalism is capable of doing at the moment and has been for well over 100 years on a worldwide basis.

As for I having never been tried or doomed to failure. The first person to outline that socialism could not be built in Russia was Lenin. The Bolsheviks intention was to maintain workers power until a revolution occurred inan advance capitalist country in Western Europe (nearly happened in Germany and Italy post WW1). Russian society was too backward to facilitated the development of socialism - the material conditions didn't exist. The failure of revolution in the West allowed for the rise of Stalinism. Socialism can and could only be built when the material conditions exist.

Absolute nonsense. Lenin and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union reverted 'Socialism in One Country' after their failed invasion of Poland in 1920. It was not, in essence, a Stalinist concept. Moreover the planned economy in Russia was able to function for as long as it did precisely BECAUSE of the vast untapped material resources the Russian state had to offer. It was such a grossly wasteful means of production that it would have worn out any other state that attempted the kind growth the USSR did (again, from a low material base. After the giddy heights of the Khrushchev years when German equipment rebuilt the Union at a steady pace, the Brezhnev 'era of stagnation' set on pretty quick.