"Socialist"

[B.S. Lewis]

From RED DAVE, in the "State socialism as it has existed in the real world" thread:

If it were semantics, sure. However, since I've been using the term since 20 years before you were born, and used it for polemics against so-called socialist societies while they still existed, I see no reason to change.

It's you who have to learn that socialist history existed for more than 50 years before the Bolshevik Revolution and has now gone on after the fall of what I prefer to call Stalinism.

RED DAVE

Fine, I can see why why RED DAVE and others are not willing to give up their usage for the word socialist. I still disagree: even using the definitions of RED DAVE's favorite socialist thinker, Hal Draper, there *HAVE* been socialist countries--they've merely been "top-down" socialist states.

But, the point of this thread is not to argue. It's to come up with a definitive term that we can all agree to use for collectively referring to the USSR, Vietnam, Cambodia, China, NK, Cuba, and perhaps a few others that I have missed.

So what can we all agree on? Come up with something and I'll be glad to use it.

Edit: someone will point out that RED DAVE already suggested the term "Stalinism" in the quote, but obviously that's not good enough as it only covers the USSR.

[Bonniedundee]

These governments are simply old fashioned class bureaucracies.

Some people use the word state capitalist, but firstly all capitalism is deeply statist and secondly these states weren't really capitalist.

[Pastor's Nightmare]

Excellent thread.

[Pastor's Nightmare]

Here are some suggestions.

Single party, centrally planned economies.

[RED DAVE]

From RED DAVE, in the "State socialism as it has existed in the real world" thread:
If it were semantics, sure. However, since I've been using the term since 20 years before you were born, and used it for polemics against so-called socialist societies while they still existed, I see no reason to change.

It's you who have to learn that socialist history existed for more than 50 years before the Bolshevik Revolution and has now gone on after the fall of what I prefer to call Stalinism.From B.S. Lewis:
Fine, I can see why why RED DAVE and others are not willing to give up their usage for the word socialist. I still disagree: even using the definitions of RED DAVE's favorite socialist thinker, Hal Draper, there *HAVE* been socialist countries--they've merely been "top-down" socialist states.So it's not find. You are missing the point. There is no such thing as top-twon socilism. A society where industry is controlled from the top-down, where workers do not have control of the surplus value that they produce is not socialism, it is state capitalism: where the state bureaucracy controls surplus value instead of the corporate capitalists.

From B.S. Lewis:
But, the point of this thread is not to argue. It's to come up with a definitive term that we can all agree to use for collectively referring to the USSR, Vietnam, Cambodia, China, NK, Cuba, and perhaps a few others that I have missed.

So what can we all agree on? Come up with something and I'll be glad to use it.

Edit: someone will point out that RED DAVE already suggested the term "Stalinism" in the quote, but obviously that's not good enough as it only covers the USSR.Why "obviously"? The term "Stalinism" has been used since the 1940s to refer to the USSR, China, the Eastern European nations, etc.

The point I am trying to make is this: you can in these discussions argue about socialism, socialist history, etc., but what is not cool is trying to ignore it

RED DAVE

[Josef Zedong]

To people like Red Dave, the only thing that makes a country socialist is the presence of Trotsky. That's how Red Dave can call pre-1929 Russia socialist. Their only real criterion is personalities.

[RED DAVE]

To people like Red Dave, the only thing that makes a country socialist is the presence of Trotsky. That's how Red Dave can call pre-1929 Russia socialist. Their only real criterion is personalities.Gee, dude, you're so smart. You figure me out to the tee. I guess I'll just have to hang my head in shame and ride off into the sunset.

Sure.

RED DAVE

[Stinger]

Gee, dude, you're so smart. You figure me out to the tee. I guess I'll just have to hang my head in shame and ride off into the sunset.

Sure.

RED DAVE I'm a capitalist pig. But I think that I'd enjoy sitting in a bar drinking a beer with Red Dave. But Joseph: you scare the hell out of me!

[Josef Zedong]

Gee, dude, you're so smart. You figure me out to the tee. I guess I'll just have to hang my head in shame and ride off into the sunset.

Sure.

RED DAVE

Or you could sit here and tell us how Trotsky's exile single handedly changed Russia from a socialist country to a "State Capitalist" one.

[Yggdrasill]

Don't move this thread in a direction that would warrant it's closing. This is just a reminder, for now.


Yggdrasill - WE&GP Moderator

[RED DAVE]

Or you could sit here and tell us how Trotsky's exile single handedly changed Russia from a socialist country to a "State Capitalist" one.Start a thread if you like.

Or, alternatively, on this thread, you might start by posting your definition of socialism and how Russian 1928-1990 conformed to it.

RED DAVE

[B.S. Lewis]

Or, alternatively, on this thread, you might start by posting your definition of socialism and how Russian 1928-1990 conformed to it.Yeah, no kidding.Why "obviously"? The term "Stalinism" has been used since the 1940s to refer to the USSR, China, the Eastern European nations, etc.To describe China? I thought Maoism was contrasted with Leninism and Stalinism (two different things, I know).The point I am trying to make is this: you can in these discussions argue about socialism, socialist history, etc., but what is not cool is trying to ignore it.Right, but I'm not. I recognize the wide gap between the philosophical ideal and the historical facts. But we do need something to call those governments that have called themselves socialist.

[Norseman]

But, the point of this thread is not to argue. It's to come up with a definitive term that we can all agree to use for collectively referring to the USSR


Stalinist.


Vietnam,


Republican command economy.


Cambodia


Corporate police state.


China


Plutocratic oligopolistic corporatocracy.


NK


Dynastic command economy.


Cuba


Statist welfare state.

Ok, so what does Stalinism, a republican command economy, a corporate police state, a plutocratic oligopolistic corporatocracy, a dynastic command economy, and a statist welfare state have in common? Well, they're all fairly statist, but in regards to different things. Cuba and the USSR were/are politically statist. The others are economically statist. I believe all of them at least pretend they are democratic, even though it all comes down to what the ruling class wants (in most countries, that would be the corporations, and where corporations are surpressed, then it is the politicians). If you want to coin or find a term for that, you'll have an ok descriptor for most of these countries. The ruling class has, and excercises, the power to keep things the way they are, while maintaining the peacefulness of those they exploit by pretending to be doing it for their benefit, or at their will.

[Josef Zedong]

Start a thread if you like.

It seems pretty relevant to this thread, since we're talking about the meaning of socialism and B.S. Lewis singled you out as an example.

Or, alternatively, on this thread, you might start by posting your definition of socialism and how Russian 1928-1990 conformed to it.

I understand why you would want to go on the offensive. The vagueness of your "State Capitalist" analysis will just allow you to dismiss anything you don't like with handwaving, semantic quibbles, bourgeois propaganda, etc. That is much easier for you than to actually defend the extremely absurd (and un-Marxist) idea that Trotsky's exile changed the entire nature of the Soviet economy over night.

[RED DAVE]

From RED DAVE:
Start a thread if you like.From Joseph Zedong:
It seems pretty relevant to this thread, since we're talking about the meaning of socialism and B.S. Lewis singled you out as an example.I agree.

From RED DAVE:
Or, alternatively, on this thread, you might start by posting your definition of socialism and how Russian 1928-1990 conformed to it.

From Joseph Zedong:
[QUOTE]I understand why you would want to go on the offensive. The vagueness of your "State Capitalist" analysis will just allow you to dismiss anything you don't like with handwaving, semantic quibbles, bourgeois propaganda, etc. That is much easier for you than to actually defend the extremely absurd (and un-Marxist) idea that Trotsky's exile changed the entire nature of the Soviet economy over night.Now, when you decide to stop cursing and engage in some political discussion, let me know.

Just as a case in point, when you can find a statement in anything I've written that "Trotsky's exile changed the entire nature of the Soviet economy over night," let me know.

RED DAVE

[Pastor's Nightmare]

There is no such thing as top-twon socilism. A society where industry is controlled from the top-down, where workers do not have control of the surplus value that they produce is not socialism, it is state capitalism: where the state bureaucracy controls surplus value instead of the corporate capitalists.

Based on this comment, I can see we agree on a tremendous amount.

In fact, I would even go so far as to say that you support the American/German/Japanese/etc. system of governance since it is in fact the most "socialist". People can buy stock, workers at many companies are offered stock in the company, and people can influence the regulations since they have more than 1 party to vote for. Depending on the labor market for their skillset, they can also leave a company and go to another.

However, you may be dismayed with the current level of wealth inequality, which is also rising. Furthermore, some of the worst off workers are not treated well. Most are new immigrants who work for very little and don't have the ability to organize. Due to a surplus of labor, employers hold leverage since the workers can be easily replaced.

The later problem is a perpetual problem with any system; however, it is worse in some systems than in others. I believe this can be addressed within the American system of governance. Some labor laws and corporate regulations can be tweaked. I don't believe the American system needs a complete overhaul.

Would you agree?

If so, I'm all for labor reform in certain cases. Philosophically, I'm all for labor reform if it does more good than harm. I just want to be extremely careful that it does more good than harm. For an example of how a leader with extremely good intentions, a high level of intelligence, and a weak understanding of economics can prevent a country from achieving its full potential; it is worth reading the following link about Jawaharlal Nehru:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawaharlal_Nehru

He was no Stalin or Mao and Wikipedia lists his religious views as agnostic/atheist. However, it is unclear how good he was for the country.

[Black_Lotus]

Moved to PE&ST.

[JamesBannon]

Here are some suggestions.

Single party, centrally planned economies.
Actually not correct. Ever heard of the French Revolution? Yeah I know they chopped the head off aristocrats and executed some priests but it was initially egalitarian (Marxists wouldn't call this socialist but I would argue that socialism predates Marx by quite some time).

[Bonniedundee]

Actually not correct. Ever heard of the French Revolution? Yeah I know they chopped the head off aristocrats and executed some priests but it was initially egalitarian (Marxists wouldn't call this socialist but I would argue that socialism predates Marx by quite some time).I think there were proto-socialists(and proto-anarchists; the enrages) therebut I wouldn't call it socialist, it was led by upper class commoners.

[Bonniedundee]

Or you could sit here and tell us how Trotsky's exile single handedly changed Russia from a socialist country to a "State Capitalist" one.It didn't, as Emma Goldman recalled socialism of any kind was dead in Russia by 1921 at the latest, Trotsky was better than Stalin but the same as Lenin.

[JamesBannon]

I think there were proto-socialists(and proto-anarchists; the enrages) therebut I wouldn't call it socialist, it was led by upper class commoners.
I think you should read your history a bit more. Certainly the political pamphleteers of note wouldn't fit that description and nor would the leaders of the citizen body that stormed the Bastille.

[Bonniedundee]

I think you should read your history a bit more. Certainly the political pamphleteers of note wouldn't fit that description and nor would the leaders of the citizen body that stormed the Bastille.At every turn the estates-general, constitutional assembly, convention and directorate were led by the upper middle class.

[JamesBannon]

You mean the educated? What revolutions have you seen that weren't lead by intellectuals?

[Bonniedundee]

You mean the educated? What revolutions have you seen that weren't lead by intellectuals?The Makhnovistas? The Paris commune? The CNT?

These men weren't just the intellectual proponents of the revolution, they held power in most local and national bodies for the entire revolution, with the exception of a brief period in 1793-94 in the Paris commune and some sections of Paris.

[untermensche]

But, the point of this thread is not to argue. It's to come up with a definitive term that we can all agree to use for collectively referring to the USSR, Vietnam, Cambodia, China, NK, Cuba, and perhaps a few others that I have missed.
Boogeymen used to justify US military and economic aggression following WWII.

That's about all they have in common.

[B.S. Lewis]

That's about all they have in common.

Are you being serious?

[untermensche]

Are you being serious?
Cuba and Vietnam?

I'm supposed to come up with one phrase to describe such different economic and political systems?

Are you being serious?

[B.S. Lewis]

Cuba and Vietnam?

I'm supposed to come up with one phrase to describe such different economic and political systems?

Are you being serious?

YES. It's called classification. It's a very common human activity, and rightfully so.

[RED DAVE]

From RED DAVE:
There is no such thing as top-twon socilism. A society where industry is controlled from the top-down, where workers do not have control of the surplus value that they produce is not socialism, it is state capitalism: where the state bureaucracy controls surplus value instead of the corporate capitalists.From Pastor's Nightmare
Based on this comment, I can see we agree on a tremendous amount.Hmmm. Somehow I doubt it.

From Pastor's Nightmare:
In fact, I would even go so far as to say that you support the American/German/Japanese/etc. system of governance since it is in fact the most "socialist".And i would say that you would be dead wrong.

From Pastor's Nightmare:
People can buy stock, workers at many companies are offered stock in the company, and people can influence the regulations since they have more than 1 party to vote for. Depending on the labor market for their skillset, they can also leave a company and go to another.These are a capitalist fantasies. For example, here are some figures on stock ownership distribution in the US in 2001 by wealth classes.

Top 1% - 33.6%
Next 9% - 43.3%
Next 10% - 12.4%
Next 20% - 7.8%
Middle 20% - 2.2%
Bottom 20% - 0.7%

http://www.epinet.org/newsroom/releases/2004/07/040713-SWAstocks.pdf

Note that the wealthiest 10% of the populations holds 77.9% of all stock.

From Pastor's Nightmare:
However, you may be dismayed with the current level of wealth inequality, which is also rising.Correct.

From Pastor's Nightmare:
Furthermore, some of the worst off workers are not treated well. Most are new immigrants who work for very little and don't have the ability to organize. Due to a surplus of labor, employers hold leverage since the workers can be easily replaced.Okay

From Pastor's Nightmare:
The later problem is a perpetual problem with any system; however, it is worse in some systems than in others. I believe this can be addressed within the American system of governance. Some labor laws and corporate regulations can be tweaked. I don't believe the American system needs a complete overhaul.

Would you agree?So long as the labor of working people is treated as a commodity, as it is under capitalism, this is ineviable.

From Pastor's Nightmare:
If so, I'm all for labor reform in certain cases.That’s big of you. I’m sure that the working class is grateful.

From Pastor's Nightmare:
Philosophically, I'm all for labor reform if it does more good than harm. I just want to be extremely careful that it does more good than harm.I wonder what your criteria are for good and harm.

From Pastor's Nightmare:
For an example of how a leader with extremely good intentions, a high level of intelligence, and a weak understanding of economics can prevent a country from achieving its full potential; it is worth reading the following link about Jawaharlal Nehru:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawaharlal_Nehru

He was no Stalin or Mao and Wikipedia lists his religious views as agnostic/atheist. However, it is unclear how good he was for the country.He was far from a socialist.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

From RED DAVE:
The term "Stalinism" has been used since the 1940s to refer to the USSR, China, the Eastern European nations, etc.From B.S. Lewis:
To describe China? I thought Maoism was contrasted with Leninism and Stalinism (two different things, I know).You need to do some research.

(1) Leninism and Stalinism were by no eans the same thing.

(2) The proper way to classify societies, at root, is the relations of labor. In that sense, Russia under Stalin and China under Mao had the same top-down relationships

From RED DAVE:
The point I am trying to make is this: you can in these discussions argue about socialism, socialist history, etc., but what is not cool is trying to ignore it.From B.S. Lewis:
Right, but I'm not. I recognize the wide gap between the philosophical ideal and the historical facts. But we do need something to call those governments that have called themselves socialist.The terms "stalinist" or "state capitalist" are appropriate.

RED DAVE

[B.S. Lewis]

OK, I'll use "state capitalist" from now on--or at least as long as I don't get yelled at by emphryio, Preno, IsItJustMe, etc. for using it.

[untermensche]

YES. It's called classification. It's a very common human activity, and rightfully so.
And I did so. I showed the only common classification these nations have. As boogeymen to justify military spending, invasions, and murder.

[Preno]

OK, I'll use "state capitalist" from now on--or at least as long as I don't get yelled at by emphryio, Preno, IsItJustMe, etc. for using it.Certainly not by me. I'm not sure whether this particular term is completely appropriate ('bureaucratic collectivism' sounds a tad better to me), but I don't consider the countries that are typically called "state capitalist" to be socialist. The core problem was, as I see it, not that the ruling class expropriated extraordinary amounts of surplus value, because it normally didn't, but that there was very little actual democracy and freedom of expression.

[DylonM]

From RED DAVE, in the "State socialism as it has existed in the real world" thread:



Fine, I can see why why RED DAVE and others are not willing to give up their usage for the word socialist. I still disagree: even using the definitions of RED DAVE's favorite socialist thinker, Hal Draper, there *HAVE* been socialist countries--they've merely been "top-down" socialist states.

But, the point of this thread is not to argue. It's to come up with a definitive term that we can all agree to use for collectively referring to the USSR, Vietnam, Cambodia, China, NK, Cuba, and perhaps a few others that I have missed.

So what can we all agree on? Come up with something and I'll be glad to use it.

Edit: someone will point out that RED DAVE already suggested the term "Stalinism" in the quote, but obviously that's not good enough as it only covers the USSR.

Well, thread-by-thread you could classify those countries using terms of your choice, by clearly defining them.

Nevertheless, I'd say "state communism" would be a good term to use to describe those states.

[B.S. Lewis]

Well, thread-by-thread you could classify those countries using terms of your choice, by clearly defining them.

You've actually got a point. By not having any agreed upon name for collectively referring to the countries in the OP, maybe we could discourage the kind of hit-and-run posts we used to get in PD threads on socialism (e.g., "My dad told me communism doesn't work because doctors get payed the same as janitors").

[countjulian]

These are a capitalist fantasies. For example, here are some figures on stock ownership distribution in the US in 2001 by wealth classes.

Top 1% - 33.6%
Next 9% - 43.3%
Next 10% - 12.4%
Next 20% - 7.8%
Middle 20% - 2.2%
Bottom 20% - 0.7%

http://www.epinet.org/newsroom/relea...-SWAstocks.pdf

Note that the wealthiest 10% of the populations holds 77.9% of all stock.


These conclusions are socialist fantasies. The top 10% does not represent any crystallized, metstasized group (the way the Communist party did in Russia from the beginning). As with any group in a fully developed, capitalist economy, these groups are fluid, changing categories, not at all alike. People who are in the richest 10% today were not so 10 years ago, and most of those in it today will not be in it 10 years from now. Investment in stock is no measure of permanent power or wealth' in fact, as the stock markets have shown repeatedly, such investments are just as likely to bring economic ruin as economic power. 20 years ago Bill Gates was a smelly, annoying, long-haired computer geek with an oversized ego and an empty bank account. Today, he's the world richest man. Likewise with "the poor": most people below the poverty level have been there for less than a year, and a year from now will not be there.

[B.S. Lewis]

That's an excellent societal model, countjulian. I know that my ideal life would be ten years of super-richness and 60 years of dirt-poorness. Sounds perfect.

I'm just kidding, I would hate that. But thankfully, none of what you say is remotely true.

[RED DAVE]

From RED DAVE:
These are a capitalist fantasies. For example, here are some figures on stock ownership distribution in the US in 2001 by wealth classes.

Top 1% - 33.6%
Next 9% - 43.3%
Next 10% - 12.4%
Next 20% - 7.8%
Middle 20% - 2.2%
Bottom 20% - 0.7%

http://www.epinet.org/newsroom/relea...-SWAstocks.pdf

Note that the wealthiest 10% of the populations holds 77.9% of all stock.From countjulian:
These conclusions are socialist fantasies. The top 10% does not represent any crystallized, metstasized group (the way the Communist party did in Russia from the beginning). As with any group in a fully developed, capitalist economy, these groups are fluid, changing categories, not at all alike. People who are in the richest 10% today were not so 10 years ago, and most of those in it today will not be in it 10 years from now. Investment in stock is no measure of permanent power or wealth' in fact, as the stock markets have shown repeatedly, such investments are just as likely to bring economic ruin as economic power. 20 years ago Bill Gates was a smelly, annoying, long-haired computer geek with an oversized ego and an empty bank account. Today, he's the world richest man. Likewise with "the poor": most people below the poverty level have been there for less than a year, and a year from now will not be there.I don't have figures on who holds stock and for how long. Just to note that George Bush's great-grandfathr was a millionaire banker (and Hitler supporter).

Supposing that there is circulation at the top. And there is. (By the way, Bill Gates' father was, I believe, a millionaire.) In anyh event, this does not mitigate the fact of minority control: tiny minority control.

A small group controls surplus value. That's the essence of capitalism; that's what socialism will eliminate.

RED DAVE

[RationalMaterialist]

I am not worthy to dispute the intricacies of various political models with you... but there is one thing I'll jump on with both feet as singularly absurd:

These conclusions are socialist fantasies. The top 10% does not represent any crystallized, metstasized group (the way the Communist party did in Russia from the beginning).
This does not make the figures fantasies. They belong in the 10% group... A place they will likely stay (Almost all of them) for the rest of their days. Their progeny will most likely be born to that group. They are therefore undeniably a distinct class.

One may fall from that priviledged class... one may be raised up into their priviledged class. But this is a VERY long way from saying that these classes are liquid enough not to matter.

And the SAME principle applies in countries with ruling nobility. Noblemen lose assets, sell estates, become marginalised... and fall from favour. Sometimes they are marginalised for very arbitrary reasons. Some have lost everything in gambling debts. Others marry in from often less noble stock and become elevated to the class. I don't see anyone arguing that their 10%er status is liquid and fleeting.

And party members? Well, they drift in and out like the tides. They get back-stabbed and pushed out into the cold on a whim. There are takeovers and power deals and whole arms of the party get thrown to the dogs. Are socialist parties any more stable? Crystalised groups?

As with any group in a fully developed, capitalist economy, these groups are fluid, changing categories, not at all alike. People who are in the richest 10% today were not so 10 years ago, and most of those in it today will not be in it 10 years from now. Investment in stock is no measure of permanent power or wealth' in fact, as the stock markets have shown repeatedly, such investments are just as likely to bring economic ruin as economic power.
Hold up... Wait a minute... Are you saying that the rich get poorer and the poor get richer? Does capitalism seek to level the playing field ? Of course not - you would not be so absurd. The reverse is true!

Therefore, any top-ten-percenter who lost all of his capital and woke up on the bottom rung would have done so DESPITE the capitalist system rather than because of it! Besides, few are so stupid as to risk all of their assets in stock... they spread their risk. the only thing that could dethrone most of these people is a market-wide crash... and even then, they'd likely be far from the bottom rung having wistfully protected much of their assets and have a nice little nest-egg somewhere in an offshore tax haven. Bankruptcy is usually filed to protect assets than because of a lack of them.

20 years ago Bill Gates was a smelly, annoying, long-haired computer geek with an oversized ego and an empty bank account. Today, he's the world richest man.
A success story. Great news for Bill ... I'm pretty sure he's quaking in his boots knowing that under CountJuliam-Capitalism he's likely to lose his shirt any moment because money is fickle like that.

Likewise with "the poor": most people below the poverty level have been there for less than a year, and a year from now will not be there.
Yes, I'm sure many have starved to death or died due to lack of health care. Oh, wait... you're compartmentalising... Jim Bob might buy his own trailer, That sort of thing, yes?

Sorry... I thought you were perhaps talking about the third world. You know, the real poverty line, the one capitalism seeks to maintain in order to keep the profit margins up.


But never mind. I'm sure that we all feel much happier knowing that under CountJulian Capitalism we'd all get a fair turn of the wheel. I just fear that for most of us living under this current capitalism, however innovative, our only chances of raising our circumstances this significantly is winning the lottery.

Face the facts. The people at the top will spread their risk and live a long and happy spoiled life. Despite the odd silly mistake or a massive stock-market-crash they are never likely to fall below their comfort zone. Their progeny will in most cases be born to this set. I'd call that a pretty clear and tangible class.


-Gary