Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EnigmaticHat]

Communism is a form of government that goes hand in hand with socialism, which is an economic system.  You can have socialistic democracies (Chile was that until a US supported coup turned it fascist) but you can't have communistic democracy because they are two different forms of government.

Feudalism isn't capitalism.  Capitalism implies competition and choice.  The main labor force in a feudal society (or at least a European one) were serfs who were tied to the land, both in the sense that they couldn't leave and that they were bound to serve whoever owned the land.   Most of what remained of the population were nobles who had their wealth and power for political and social reasons rather than economic ones.  There were a few freeman who might work a job and sell their goods, but they were a minority of the population and often bartered instead of dealing in money anyway.

[XXSockXX]

Communism is not remotely a political system! It is entirely an economic one, and it just so happens that historically, everyone insists on pairing it up with totalitarianism, even though democracy would go so much better with it.

It is a political system. Not necessarily a totalitarian one, that happend mostly due to the circumstances, but not one that cares much about individual interests and therefore not a democratic one. The economic part of Communism is planned economy, the political part is "rule of the proletariat", which in practice always meant "dictatorship of the communist party".
I wrote something about that in another thread a while ago:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

...we have never seen a socialist/communist state in the sense that Marx had in mind. And we probably never will. Marx was a brilliant analyst of the capitalism of his time and is still regarded as such, while his historical determinism is widely dismissed today. He was not however a great theorist of socialism. He thought industrialisation would eventually lead to a revolution of factory workers, which would lead to the dictatorship of the proletarians, followed by the communist state. He did never elaborate how precisely such a state would look like and how the transformation would work practically.
Lenin (and all revolutionaries that came later) transformed Marx' ideas to fit his own needs and ideas. He had to come up with the whole practical part himself. Russia was not a country where a marxist revolution could possibly take place, it was barely industrialized and the majority of people were farmers, not factory workers. So Lenin included farmers into his concept of the working class. He managed to artificially (not in Marx' sense naturally occuring) initiate a revolution (financed by Germany) and then got stuck in the dictatorship part of the plan.
This happened with all communist revolutions basically, they all had Marx' ideas twisted to fit the ideological needs of their countries and circumstances.

Capitalism requires those who obtain power to offer something in return and feudalism made no such guarantee. 

That is wrong. Feudalism requires the powerful to offer protection. It is a system of societal organization, not an economical one. Capitalism requires the rich to offer nothing. Again, Capitalism is only an economical system. The way societies in the West are organized today is Democracy, which usually will have some sort of wealth distribution, to varying degrees.

The main labor force in a feudal society (or at least a European one) were serfs who were tied to the land, both in the sense that they couldn't leave and that they were bound to serve whoever owned the land.   Most of what remained of the population were nobles who had their wealth and power for political and social reasons rather than economic ones.  There were a few freeman who might work a job and sell their goods, but they were a minority of the population and often bartered instead of dealing in money anyway.

And that's even simplified. There were early forms of capitalism and democracy in the cities, like the Hansa. Also large chunks of land were owned by the church. The degree to which peasants were unfree serfs varied considerably between regions. Also the power of nobles varied a lot between regions. Same goes for land ownership, in some parts of Germany most peasants owned their land, they just had to give part of their income to a noble/city/monastery etc. Overall Feudalism is much more complex than it looks and it makes no sense to compare it directly to capitalism or other modern forms of societal organization.

[GlyphGryph]

That is wrong. Feudalism requires the powerful to offer protection. It is a system of societal organization, not an economical one. Capitalism requires the rich to offer nothing. Again, Capitalism is only an economical system. The way societies in the West are organized today is Democracy, which usually will have some sort of wealth distribution, to varying degrees.

In the same sense the mafia offer you protection. Everyone know the thing they are truly protecting you against is themselves, and that protection can be lifted whenever they feel the whim.

And of COURSE capitalism requires the rich to offer something - if you offer nothing, you have no value. If you have nothing to offer, you are not rich. They don't require the rich to offer something to you, but they require them to offer something of value to somebody, or they will be unable to build or benefit from any accumulated wealth.

Do not make the mistake of thinking this is a particularly good or noble thing. It just means that those who have something to offer can climb above those who have nothing to offer.

One of the main points of communism and socialism is that you do NOT need to offer something in return. It is one of the areas where it clashes most harshly with capitalism.

[Guardian G.I.]

Everyone's favourite dictator, Joseph Stalin, tried to envision how a socialist state should become a communist state.

In order to pave the way for a real, and not declaratory transition to communism, at least three main preliminary conditions have to be satisfied.

 1. It is necessary, in the first place, to ensure, not a mythical "rational organization" of the productive forces, but a continuous expansion of all social production, with a relatively higher rate of expansion of the production of means of production. The relatively higher rate of expansion of production of means of production is necessary not only because it has to provide the equipment both for its own plants and for all the other branches of the national economy, but also because reproduction on an extended scale becomes altogether impossible without it.

2. It is necessary, in the second place, by means of gradual transitions carried out to the advantage of the collective farms, and, hence, of all society, to raise collective-farm property to the level of public property, and, also by means of gradual transitions, to replace commodity circulation by a system of products-exchange, under which the central government, or some other social-economic centre, might control the whole product of social production in the interests of society.

[...]

 3. It is necessary, in the third place, to ensure such a cultural advancement of society as will secure for all members of society the all-round development of their physical and mental abilities, so that the members of society may be in a position to receive an education sufficient to enable them to be active agents of social development, and in a position freely to choose their occupations and not be tied all their lives, owing to the existing division of labour, to some one occupation.

What is required for this?

It would be wrong to think that such a substantial advance in the cultural standard of the members of society can be brought about without substantial changes in the present status of labour. For this, it is necessary, first of all, to shorten the working day at least to six, and subsequently to five hours. This is needed in order that the members of society might have the necessary free time to receive an all-round education. It is necessary, further, to introduce universal compulsory polytechnical education, which is required in order that the members of society might be able freely to choose their occupations and not be tied to some one occupation all their lives. It is likewise necessary that housing conditions should be radically improved, and that real wages of workers and employees should be at least doubled, if not more, both by means of direct increases of wages and salaries, and, more especially, by further systematic reductions of prices for consumer goods.

These are the basic conditions required to pave the way for the transition to communism.

Source can be found here, quoted extract can be found here.

[XXSockXX]

That is wrong. Feudalism requires the powerful to offer protection. It is a system of societal organization, not an economical one. Capitalism requires the rich to offer nothing. Again, Capitalism is only an economical system. The way societies in the West are organized today is Democracy, which usually will have some sort of wealth distribution, to varying degrees.

In the same sense the mafia offer you protection. Everyone know the thing they are truly protecting you against is themselves, and that protection can be lifted whenever they feel the whim.

And of COURSE capitalism requires the rich to offer something - if you offer nothing, you have no value. If you have nothing to offer, you are not rich. They don't require the rich to offer something to you, but they require them to offer something of value to somebody, or they will be unable to build or benefit from any accumulated wealth.

Do not make the mistake of thinking this is a particularly good or noble thing. It just means that those who have something to offer can climb above those who have nothing to offer.

One of the main points of communism and socialism is that you do NOT need to offer something in return. It is one of the areas where it clashes most harshly with capitalism.

Well, I understood "offer something" as some sort of wealth distribution, which is not inherently present in Capitalism. If you mean "spending money", that is what rich people in all societies do, so I don't get what you mean there.

The mafia is actually organized like the roman client system, which is not unsimilar to Feudalism, so you're not that far off there. (except that in Feudalism everybody is in the mafia  ).
But Feudalism is also a legal system, so the powerful can not just lift their protection from you. If they do, they act unlawfully and lose their legitimacy.

Communism requires that you offer your labour in return for what society gives you. Try to stop working in a communist state and see what happens. In communist countries everybody had a job, but not necessarily one they liked or wanted to do.

[GlyphGryph]

I meant in the terms of value dsitribution (which is a bit different than wealth distribution). One can only accumulate wealth in a capitalist system providing things of value to others. If you do not provide values to others, you get nothing in return.

In a kleptocratic system, this is not needed, which is why most capitilists really want to be kleptocrats instead, but kleptocracy is not capitalism.

Socialism, at least, does not require you to give anything of value to another in order to receive something of value in return. If you are sick, or disabled, or poor and alone and young, you will get assistance. This helps insure stability, because it gives people sureness that even if they someday find themselves unable to offer things of value, they will still be taken care of, and is why most countries are not completely capitalist - people LIKE that safety net.

But the feudal aristocracy worked off the same system - you did NOT need to offer things of value to get things in return. And no matter how much you offered in return, there were things you could not get that others could not lose.

A merchant could NOT buy their way into becoming a noble (at least not by common feudalist standards, but exceptions are always made in extreme circumstances).

A noble could never LOSE being a noble, no matter how little of value they offered.

[XXSockXX]

No, I still don't get it.
In any economic system you can only create wealth by providing something that is of value to others. That includes kleptocracy, since wealth has to come from somewhere before it gets stolen.

A welfare system (if you want to call that Socialism) has to be financed somehow, in practice through taxes and insurances. If nobody pays these anymore, the system collapses. That is the main problem with unemployment in Europe.

Your view on Feudalism is too simplistic. Nobles offered a lot of value, mostly protection and land rights.
People becoming noble was more common than you think, though simply buying in didn't work. Rich people could however become very powerful in the background, while many nobles were chronically bankrupt.
And while nobles couldn't lose their noble birth, they could certainly become irrelevant and die in poverty. That was pretty common too, and it's one reason for the many crusades and wars of the Middle Ages.

[GlyphGryph]

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say.

[XXSockXX]

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say.

I'm not sure what you wanted to say in your last post either. 
We might be nitpicking on semantics or something, I don't think we disagree on anything important, so it's probably okay.

[Angle]

That's a major problem with arguing on the internet (and with arguing in general) - It's far too easy to end up talking past each other.

edit: I was actually considering a forum layout designed explicitly for arguing - Essentially, you have to hypertext all your terms to definitions, and you have to put all you arguments into exact forms.

[Loud Whispers]

I made a thread on GZ trial, probably responded to you somewhere if you posted at all in this thread about it.
Just didn't want to derail from your lovely left | right argument.

[DWC]

That's a major problem with arguing on the internet (and with arguing in general) - It's far too easy to end up talking past each other.

edit: I was actually considering a forum layout designed explicitly for arguing - Essentially, you have to hypertext all your terms to definitions, and you have to put all you arguments into exact forms.

Yeah, I find arguing on the internet to be unproductive, especially with good topics like politics where everybody has deeply entrenched/ indoctrinated belief systems and nothing can ever be said that will sway their opinion. I like to argue just to try and understand people and also to better form my own opinions. I think others do the same thing, it's why they talk past each other and go off topic.

Your forum idea sounds good, but it'd be nice if the board did some of the work for you. Especially on international boards, you have political terminology that differs in meaning from country to country. Like saying 'liberal' or 'populist' mean totally different things in the USA and in Europe and it leads to confusion.

Edit: Speaking of which, Communist is a ridiculously flawed system, inheriant in it's basic philosophy that an individual has absolutely no self-ownership. The amount of effort put into a communist system has zero correlation to what one received from that system. A 'from each to their ability and to each their needs' creates a system where the least productive and most needy benefit the most and the most productive and resilient people lose. So instead of offering incentive for effort, it punishes it and instead of punishing irresponsibility, it rewards it.

So, it's no wonder why every 'communist' or 'socialist' society have been miserable, oppressive hell holes.

[Vector]

I'd like to ask that the left/right argument be moved to a different thread, since this is not an appropriate area to discuss the virtues of various political systems at length.

3. Minimal wage jobs aren't careers.

And yet people are stuck working in them their entire lives and can't get out.

[SalmonGod]

Where's it going to move to?  I was about to jump in

[Helgoland]

Me too! Twelve hours gone, and four pages written - entrenched opinions, indeed.

In der gesellschaftlichen Produktion ihres Lebens gehen die Menschen bestimmte notwendige von ihrem Willen unabhängige Verhältnisse ein, Produktionsverhältnisse, die einer bestimmten Entwicklungsstufe ihrer materiellen Produktivkräfte entsprechen. Die Gesamtheit dieser Produktionsverhältnisse bildet die ökonomische Struktur der Gesellschaft, die reale Basis, worauf sich ein juristischer und politischer Überbau erhebt, und welcher bestimmte gesellschaftliche Bewußtseinsformen entsprechen.

-The man you see below my username

It roughly translates to: In production, individuals agree to certain relations that are independant of their will, production-relations, that correspond to a certain stage of development of their means of production. The totality of those relations forms the economic structure of society, the real basis, on which a legal and political superstructure has been erected to which certain forms of thinking within society correspond.

(Sorry for the rough translation, but it's an old-fashioned German - even native speakers like me have some difficulty understanding it.)

So Marx himself thought that it is pointless to differentiate between political and economic system. Try and obtain the book "Why nations fail" - it may be a bit narrow in focus, but it explains very well how certain economic structures bring forth certain political structures and the other way around.

Also, and this cannot be stressed enough: It is pointless to argue that real communism never existed. It has been honestly attempted, and it has failed every time. That doesn't mean it cannot succeed, but it strongly suggests there is some inherent flaw in communist ideology. My guess: Because communism usually comes with revolution, it destroys pre-existing structures. The high degree of centralization necessary for a planned economy then makes autocracy virtually unavoidable, resulting in the Real Socialism ("Rea existierender Sozialismus" in German - say that out loud! It sounds awesome!) we all know and love.