h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Now there are alot of bad feelings going around the globe in respects to the Socialst government. But it wwasn't all that bad. Sure there where some really messed up Socialist leaders, (Moa, Stalin) but the ideas that Marx had were really good.

Dorian

The problem is that while communism is morally a better system than capitalism, it enables one group to take total control and impress its will on the others, leading to totalitarian control. This is not so easy in a capitalist society. So extremely left-wing governments tend to flip across to the other side and become extremely right-wing. Just look at Russia, China, Albania, Cuba and Israel to see this in action.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment here Gnomon. I am really bravely trying to hold back the sarcasm that wants to respond to the bit about

'it enables one group to take total control and impress its will on the others, leading to totalitarian control. This is not so easy in a capitalist society'

Although this has not yet been pushed through quite so violently as in the countries used as your examples, it seems that the one group in total control is able to impress its will on the others with ease under capitalism in the shape of market forces and corporate power. These guys have total power in our system, and many a war is started around the world because of these people who have got fingers in pies all over the place. Where there's money to be made, and a politician to be bought out, their will, will be impressed upon anyone whose interests cross theirs.

Sorry, but quite well up for an argument like this after I saw that program on Kissinger last night - what a b*st*rd

Perhaps it is just the nature of humanity that whatever system of government we come up with, some b*****s will take control and try to oppress the common man.

AMEN to that

I think that the fundamental principles of socialism are natural and okay but then I also think that capitalism has its place too.

Historically man is a social animal and there has been a lot of work recently that tends to support the view that civilisation is a product of community based behaviour. However the same work has also identified a crucial trade element in the formation of these fledgling societies.

I think that this sort of thing shows up the problem with "modern" societies and education systems. The west has tended towards capitialism, the east communism. Each has seen their approach as good and the other as bad.

The reality is that there needs to be a balance and that the participants need to encourage that balance to form and be sustained.

Being too young to have remembered the pre-Thatcher era of Britain, this seems, from what I can gather as a supposed blend of the two extremes between the kind of capitalism that we have now, and the communist states of USSR and China.
I have no trouble debating your viewpoint Madent, but why did we fail completely to pull this off? Or is my brief description of our system where we were obviously involved in world trade, whilst attempting a large welfare state and high taxes to try and re-distribute wealth acrosss the board, distorted in some way?

In response to post #2. Israel Communist, what are you high?

Dorian

Socialism does not wish to abolish trade. Trade is, of course, a major part of society since one person alone cannot build a house, farm food, supply water and design and manufacture the luxuries that we all need. Socialism recognises that trade and socialisation can be one and the same thing so trade can be utilised for the good of society rather than the benifit of the minority.

Regarding human beings' social side I think it is quite clear that we are by far the most social creatures on the planets (though I'm not sure about the social sturcture of bacteria) and this is the only reason for our, quite incredible, technological superiority. We are not actually physically that much more intelligent than apes but our increased social instincts have allowed us to develop and construct ideas and philosophies.

A philosophy or design, no matter how revolutionary, is never the product of original thinking, but the result of development over hundreds and thousands of years through communication among different people. Neanderthals are credited as being almost an intellectual match for us homo sapiens yet they barely developed technologically in the hundreds of thousands of years that they graced the planet. I think the reason for this is that they very rarely sociialised with anyone outside their immediate family and therefore were not afforded the advantage of getting different peoples' perspectives on certain situations.

Wesley Pipes, I'm afraid the last two paragraphs of your post are factually and logically wrong (examples: define 'social'; Neanderthals *are* Homo sapiens).

I would agree with Gnomon. In an ideal world, maybe socialism would be the way to go. But this world is far from ideal, and the heavily state-run nature of a socialist system makes it open both to crippling beaurocracy and corruption from the bottom to the very top. There is also the fact that many socialist governments have taken power in revolutions (especially high profile ones), which places people at the top who really shouldn't be there.

In addition, I think a lot of people in this world would vehemently disagree that Staln and Mao were messed up, or that socialism is a bad thing.

I think that stalin and mao were bad and the way socialism was handled in ussr was bad too but still I feel a little nostalgic about it. the life was so much easier there.

"the life was so much easier there."

How? From what I could see they had to work harder than us for very little pay.

Communism's main problem, in my humble opinion, was that it was dogmatic. For example, despite effectively preaching the same co-operative and anti-materialistic lifestyle that Christ did, it was vehemently anti-religious and therefore the Communists alienated many christians they could have had on their side. It also refused to accept anything that deviated from strict Marxist-derived ideology, even if it was achieving what was wanted (for example, in Mao's China, private farming was set up to help supply food for citizens. It was closed down by Mao who would not accept any private enterprise. Instead he instigated "The Great Leap Forward" which failed miserably, leaving many Chinese starving). Any attempts in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe to deviate from the USSR's Marxist-Leninist doctrine (for example in Hungary and Czechoslovakia) were met with invasion and a lot of hypocritical nonsense from the Soviet's about how they had "rescued" the citizenry from a reactionary "counter-revolution" when really they had put down a popular revolution against a genuinely reactionary state.

Dorian Grey, ever heard of Kibbutzim? These are communities operating in the pure spirit of communism.

I think there does need to be a mix of both socialism and capitalism.

With rewards at least proportionate to effort, continued innovation and technological change will happen. The great communist states (USSR and now China) have added virtually nothing to the body of knowledge.

Then with some state control/provision of the core utilities and health systems, everyone can have an equal opportunity to enjoy life.

I think the reason that we have never managed to pull this off is because we are human. Unfortunately people have a tendancy to go for the result that benefits themselves, i.e. winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. This is encouraged by pretty much all of our political systems. It'll take a generation that work for mutual benefit to effect a real change.

It is easy to criticise the faults of capitalism and socialism, without offering a real alternative.

Going along with the basic theory that human beings cannot accept communism, although it really would be quite nice.
This I would agree with, although it is not true across the board. The human race can evolve, and there are many many people who believe that the spirit of capitalism is wrong, is it possible for the human race to evolve into a way of thinking that does not think like the back of those annoying 'No Fear' T-Shirts?
Personally, I like to think that we are already on our way there, hopefully more and more people now are thinking in terms of quality, not quantity in their life choices.

Future World Dictator -

>>'Define 'social'': the desire (or necessity) to mingle with people from different families, backgrounds and locations.

>>'Neanderthals are Homo sapiens': You've got me there. For some reason I was thinking 'CroMagnon' yet typing 'Homo sapien'.

>>Now please explain how the post was logically incorrect.

We've probably all had this argument before, but here goes again anyway...

Can we have a bit more precision with our language to start off with? For instance, at the very least we should distinguish between socialist theory (of which there are many different sorts, possibly as many sorts as there are socialists) and "left-wing" revolutionary governments? The spirit of the latter tends to be rather opposed to that of the former.

This is quite interesting (Engels' "The Principles of Communism" 1847):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

I'm old enough to remember pre-Thatcher Britain, and there was plenty wrong with it - but there's plenty wrong with what we have now. The thing with capitalism is that it works fine for those who have a bit of dosh, but it can be a bit of a disaster if those who don't.

The thing with socialism is that it's hardly been tried. I think a better word for the Soviet and Maoist governments might be totalitarian, rather than communist. Even so, the Soviets might have made a better job of the economics of communism if they hadn't been locked into a political and economic battle with the West. And while they undoutedly failed, I wonder how much better off the Russian people are now with their free market.

I think the basic problem with any economic system is a human one - most people are acquisitive. Nearly everybody who gets a bit of money and power tries to accumulate more, and whatever the system the ones with the clout end up with more and more.

I'm not epecially well-off, but I look around my nice house, at all my nice consumer goods, with my nice car parked outside, and I watch the news on my nice television whilst I eat my nice meal, and I on it see people with nothing, starving. And then I think - am I rich because they are poor? Are they poor becaue I am rich? I don't know the answer, but I suspect that if the wealth was a little more evenly distributed throughout the world it would be a much better place for us all.

Don't tell me that our system works - for much of the world it just plain stinks.

Socialism and communism aren't the same either. Communism seeks to achieve an equal reault in life for everybody (i. e. the exact same position, wealth and education for everybody) whereas socialism merely strives to achieve equal opportunities and does not prohibit different people from ending up different places depending on their potential for achievement.
I personally am very fond of the idea of socialism, but unfortunately
I quite agree with the last chap to write here (his name was too long) on that the main problem is human beings... We're not able to handle something like socialism perfectly, simply because not all people think quite in the same way, and not all people should. Differences of any kind are allowed, unless they directly harm other people. But I still think socialism ought to be tried... if only people would vote for it... or there was a good socialist party here and not just these people who are really honest and trustable, but awfully seclusive... still a whole lot better than the current (Danish) government, who are somewhere between Bush and Jörg Haider...
Marie

I have to disagree with the above post - it is simply not true that "Communism seeks to achieve an equal reault in life for everybody (i. e. the exact same position, wealth and education for everybody)". Compare and contrast to Marx's statement "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Similarly, it isn't true that "socialism merely strives to achieve equal opportunities and does not prohibit different people from ending up different places depending on their potential for achievement." At best, this could be interpreted as referring to a sort of social democratic or market socialist viewpoint.

Sorry if I seem a bit confrontational, but the devaluation of the language of the left by constant misrepresentation really annoys me.

I think the failure of attempts at a socialist society (and there is a question about whether or not the attempts were genuine attempts at socialism or not) is more due to the failure of centralisation (the chosen mechanism) than anything to do with human nature. What is needed are decentralised socialist models. At least, that's what I think at the moment, I might change my mind by next week.