Thumbs up for Socialism, and other outdated ideas.

[davywavy]

I've been involved ni any number of arguments on socialism, communism, and the redistribution of wealth over the past few weeks, mainly with people still their first blush of idealism (bless 'em) who haven't thought through the implications of their happy ideas. And so, as I've promised to several times, I've started to write down my 'Why I don't like Socialist/Communist economic forms and governments' thoughts.
I've started by getting together some of the more outrageously absurd statements that I've had to argue against and writing my views on them. I'll go from there another time, but I expect this to firmly put the cat amongst the pigeons to start with.

So here we go...



“Communism believes in the fundamental good of human nature and that freed from the sociological effects of grubbing for food and (in some cases) the directives of religion we're basically all good chaps with each others best interests at heart working together for the betterment of the community/species as a whole.”
This load of old nonsense, you may be astonished to know, is actually a quote from a comment on my LJ quite recently. It’s so hopelessly divorced from reality that I thought it needed tackling first. I respond to it with a question; if it gives individuals the greatest credit, why does its fundamental principle involve taking the dispensation of resources and property out of their hands? If Communism/socialism believes that people are so fundamentally good, why does it take away the fruits of individuals’ labour from that individual? Why does it believe that people will not give freely of what they have without a central mechanism to oversee that distribution?
Of course, the answer is that left wing thinkers give the individual the very least credit for disposing of their resources for the betterment of man. It is, in short, a self-declared elite (who oversee the distribution of resources) overseeing the rest of their fellow man whom they believe aren’t to be trusted to live their lives responsibly. A philosophy which I find abhorrent. Give me libertarianism any day.

“From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”
I propose that of all economic systems, in practise only free market capitalism comes close to fulfilling this statement, and even then it comes only halfway; that is, the economy takes peoples abilities and pays what it considers to be a market rate for those abilities. Admittedly, sometimes that market rate may be horrendously skewed one way or another, but the abilities of the individual are their primary trading commodity within the economic system. As the socialist experiments around the world have shown us, the reality of living under those systems is “From each irrespective of their abilities, to each depending on what we can supply”. As we know; Mao put university lecturers to work in the paddy fields, Stalin sent civil engineers to the front lines, and Castro sent anyone capable of building a boat to Miami.
(Speaking of Castro, don’t you think that if the Cubans enjoyed living in a socialist paradise, they’d want to stay there? Just a question…)

“Socialism would work in Cuba if the Americans lifted their trade sanctions!”
Now, perhaps this is just me, but any economic system whose success relies upon it’s sworn enemies trading with it against their will strikes me as fundamentally flawed from inception. People often claim that by not trading with Cuba, the US is dooming it’s citizens to poverty. That argument works just as well the other way around; by enforcing an unworkable governmental and economic system upon it’s citizens, Castro is also dooming them to poverty.

“But Stalin wasn’t a Communist!” (1)
A common cry. For that matter, if you ask a little further, nor were Lenin, Brezhnev, Mao, Kim il Sung, Cauecescu, Marshall Tito, Hoxha…oh, Hell. Nobody who has ever run a country that claimed to be a Communist/ Socialist ‘peoples’ state actually was one. Got that? You see, they couldn’t have been proper lefties because they didn’t make the government work without comprehensive repression of their citizenry and, as we all know, if everyone just held hands and loved each other then a socialist paradise would work. Yeah. Right. And if the moon was made of fuckin’ cheese, then Wallace and Gromit would be millionaires.
This is why I rebel against the idea of yet more socialist state experiments. You see, none of the above people were stupid – in fact they were all incredibly intelligent people, and most of them started off with the very best of intentions. However, their good intentions vanished just as soon as they realised that it was necessary to force people to live in a Communist utopia. ‘”They’ll thank me for this later!”, Stalin must have thought as he starved the Caucasus into submission. “A glorious peoples utopia will ensue where everyone works for the good of everyone else! Now ship those Cossacks off to Siberia, would you?”
There is a serious point here as well; as I’ve noted before, the majority of the people I know with strong left wing views tend to be students and the unemployed. Now, ask yourselves this: if the intellectual elite of nations consisting of billions of people can’t make left wing economic systems work, what the hell makes you think that you can?
Don’t think for one moment that I’m saying that lefty economics cannot work; what I’m saying is that every time we’ve tried them so far, they’ve failed miserably and led to untold suffering of innocents - and the idea of yet more millions suffering and dying in yet more socialist economic experiments until we hit on the right formula kinda leaves me a bit cold. Call me an old softy.

“But Stalin wasn’t a Communist!” (2)
Hitler wasn’t a Nazi. Discuss.

“If the richer portion of society gave up just a little of what they have, it would relieve the poverty of the masses.”
Let’s look at the way things are set up at the moment. The higher waged pay tax at 40%; then they make National Insurance payments on top of that, and then they pay VAT on just about everything they buy at 17.5%. In short, the government takes in taxation approaching a massive 65% of everything that is earned by the vast majority of the wealthier section of society. (The really smart ones move their money offshore and avoid a lot of this tax, and good for them.)
So just where is this ‘just a little of what they have’ supposed to come from – what would be a fair percentage of earnings? Seventy? Eighty? Ninety? All of it?
Of course, the answer is none of the above. The amount of money paid in tax by the citizenry of this country (from the lowest to the highest paid) is many times what is needed to shift the economic demographic of the poorest section upwards dramatically: but it doesn’t do so, and it would continue to fail to do so regardless of the economic system we used. The reason for this is not form of government, or economic system, but human fallibility, waste, greed, and incompetence – and these are things that cannot be educated or voted away. Shifting to a socialist state has, in every example ever on the face of this green earth we have been given, failed miserably to improve the quality of life for the majority of it’s inhabitants (and, before you mention Sweden, the Swedish economy would have collapsed in 1998 were it not for immense loans and currency support from its – rather more capitalist – neighbours), and so when people try and thrust left wing politics at me I instinctively shy away in revulsion.

And this is why I believe that the model of Western, Liberal Democracy that we live under is the finest model of government that humanity has yet invented (and I’d rate Australia as having the best model of all). We live in a world where essential resources are easily in sufficient supply for all; our great limitation is of human ability and willingness - and simply changing economics isn’t going to suddenly make a population of hapless incompetents into dynamic successes. People are venal, inefficient, ineffectual, stupid, and more – and these qualities cannot be rid of by a shift of governmental form. Any system which relies upon central control of resources will be plagued more by these simple human failings than one which replies upon the individual to dispense with those resources that they have access to as they see best – to put it another way, the more steps in the ladder, the more likely that one of those steps will break.
Our current system of economy and government is superior to any of those tried before for the simple fact that it allows us, as individuals, the greatest freedom to dispense with what we have in the way that best suits us. It allows us to place the value upon ourselves that we choose to and strive towards that value without having the needs of a centralised state imposed upon us. And above all, it allows us to choose those rulers who we believe will make our lives least miserable. If people wanted to live in a socialist utopia, they’d have voted one in by now. The fact that the citizenry of this nation repeatedly elect right wing (and that’s Mr. Blair included) governments indicates to me that that’s because they don’t want a socialist utopia. The quicker the various lefties I know get used to the fact that their ideology, whilst pretty, has been weeded out by social Darwinism as effectively as Feudalism and Theocracy have been, the happier I will be.

Comments

Often quoted, but true

[robinbloke.livejournal.com]

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Sir Winston Churchill

Re: Often quoted, but true

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Good old Sir Winston. He was absolutely right.

Re: Often quoted, but true

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Oh, and where's my review?

Re: Often quoted, but true

[robinbloke.livejournal.com]

On the way, not quite finished reading it. To indicate how much I liked it so far I ended up staying 20 minutes overtime at work (and me a habitual clock watcher) because I was reading it.

[malkachu.livejournal.com]

Hitler was a Fascist.
He believed in one person ordained by God, chosen by the people to return Germany to one of greatest World Powers on par with the old British Empire.
Nothing to do with Socialism.
He wasn't a Socialist.
*bangs head on desk*
And anyone who calls him one is a moron *shoots a look at some people from years ago*
He was a Fascist.
A bigoted Fascist.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Thank you. Now replace the word Hitler with Stalin, and Fascist with Communist, and we're getting somewhere. Just a demonstration that lefties are happy to deny their lunatics, whilst pointing like billy-oh at everyone elses.

True

[malkachu.livejournal.com]

There isn't a Communist alive or dead who wasn't a Fascist.
Stalin was a Leninist and everyone who succeeded Stalin i.e Kruschev were Stalinists.
At least someone isn't saying the Bolsheviks took power from Tsar Nicholas II.
*grins*
Big pet peeve there!

[skinny-cartman.livejournal.com]

nope hitler was a Nazi or a fascist (small f)
Fascist (big F) refers to the Fascist party of
Benito Mussolini.
Similarly Franco wasn't a Fascist..
Important distinction capital letters denote names
rather than ideologies

[malkachu.livejournal.com]

Does it?
What about grammar? When you have to use it as a capital... does that make it different?

Yeah...

[(Anonymous)]

Neither Franco or Hitler were Fascists, after all, neither had many bound sheafs of wood. :)

zac

[skinny-cartman.livejournal.com]

To reiterate the point I just made to liam
yeah Stalin Lenin Mao etc. were Communists
whether they actually were communists is a different matter...
Technically I would have said that the governments of the states you suggested were centralised etc. and were described (by lenin I think) as "dictatorships of the Proletariat" hence they aren't communist in the time of Khrushchev(56-64) (hero of Stalingrad and rather odd Maize loving agriculturally obsessed bloke - I quite like him but then given his obsessions for agricultural and the space program I would) the USSR was suggesting it would reach true communism by 1980 (overly optimistic I think...)
Most Communist states followed the Russian model, and hence can't really be discribed in as truely communist (one point in this is that they exist as states have governments etc. which in a true communist society (exactly what is true communist is a matter for debate now as it always has been too ) wouldn't exist as people would exist in this lovely state where they gave and were given what they required by others. However as an intellectual concept I believe this is flawed as it works on the idea that the proletariat (and what exactly would constitute that in a modern society?) is infinitely more likely to work on a fairer basis than the other classes of society as it has the moral fibre etc...
This however is a subject of the victorian style societies that the leftwing thinkers grew up in with heavy industrialisation with the cost being borne by the poor and the victorian views of moral fibre and such like..
Modern society has moved more towards a "middle class" for most folk type thing, thus invalidating communism under the marxist thinking of the past (or has it marx never really saw a revolt more of a "revolution" in thinking etc thus a normalisation of wealth and opportunity is almost in keeping)
Communist revolutions tend to be (since the russian success) peasant revolts in the first instance flowing into dictatorships with (alledged) social reform programs etc. with a view to equality in society by showing the peasant as the model for true equality.
Obviously however as they govern the states in a world environment the rulers (dictators or whatever) tend towards pragmatic policies of industrialisation, increased military budgets etc etc(the opposite of intended communist doctrine in some ways)

Main point the examples you use to belittle communism aren't exactly the best as whilst they publically state themselves as communist their policies etc. tend to show the opposite in somecases such as lenin's NEP/War communism etc this is due to need to maintain the state so that the idea of communism isn't crushed from the outside or by famine etc. other times it is because they see the way forward to a communist society is through a intermediate stage etc. other times it is due to foreseen need.

a truer view of a communist experiment might perhaps be seen in the short lived Paris commune of 1870-71 and of a socialist model perhaps in some of the spanish civil war movements (before the involvement of russia or those groups outside of that.)

Whilst I've read a fair bit of anarchist and communist theory and history however I'm by no means an expert and whilst I subscribe to a social reform policy I doubt I'd call myself much more than a left wing libertarian.

My view...

[(Anonymous)]

Perhaps this shows my American tendencies, but I think there are some clear distinctions to be made between socialism, communism, capitalism, totalitarianism, etc. - and whether any of these specific tools is the right one for a given problem.

Ultimately, when it comes down to it, regardless of political ideology, there's a question of how it and a leader copes with a given challenge. So, some broad examples:

Capitalism is correct in its basic assumptions of human greed, and in its model of competative behaviour. However, the natural inclination of this and all systems is to go to an extreme ... in this case, monopolism which liquidates human and public assets at a rapacious rate, and risks revolutionary feedbacks. Not at all good for the needs of a stable society - a need which becomes more evident & vital with greater wealth.

For a quick tangent: I find it ironic and hilarious that the net result of a competative model and the chaos it spreads is a cooperative strategy in the form of monopolies ... alas, a monopoly is not a populist cooperative, it is a hegemony.

Because human foresight is limited, capitalism's structure of 'riding the waves' of market ebbs and flows is economically efficient, but at the expense of real people who bear its greatest burdens. Marx very importantly pointed this terrible deficiency, and socialism and communism sought to answer it. The socialist-capitalist economies of Europe and North America are an example of attempts at clever management of this challenge/problem/deficiency. Yeah, Keynes may seem old-hat, but there is an implicit recognition of political and social dimensions in that system, with efforts to balance them out.

However, since all these systems are leadership driven, individuals can inject their own peculiarities into them. So, no Stalin was not a communist, he was a brutal dictator who created a system of control and development utterly different from marxist-style communist ideology. He successful built a global superpower with significant military and technical prestige ... entirely on the terrified backs of both the skilled and unskilled in his exploitative society.

As for your complaints about taxation - since people are ultimately selfish in the main, philanthropic beneficience is not generally sufficient to counter the burden placed on the poorer, or the environment (my personal banner I'll admit). A competative model of behaviour is particularly short-sighted as well. Therefore, some body is necessary to even out these variances for the net benefit of all. Whether this is enforcement of trading rules (the failure of which is so apparent in the case of Enron), or providing basic services for efficent and healthy lives (water, sewerage, electricity, food, medicine, education), or forcing the accounting of environmentally-harmful practices (ending the long tradition of just dumping pollution wherever one liked, since there was no liability attached to the behaviour before).

Incidentally, the differences between leaders and ideology seems to me largely a difference of accounting. :)

Also, given the dominant nature of global commerce now; the original call by the Internationals for a global union of labour I think is vital as never before. Just as global finance laws eliminate unfair tax havens, global labour organisation can work towards eliminating unfair labour havens. This could mean the end of subsidised agriculture in the developed world, setting of minimum wage and child labour restriction on foreign textiles, and proper recognition of migrant labour with appropriate political and economic freedoms & responsibilities. In the vaccuum of labour accountancy lies something tantamount to slavery.

For capitalism's own health and future, it needs global unions, I argue - whether it comprehends this now or no.

Re: My view...

[(Anonymous)]

I would add the libertarianism is unworkable, since it's necessarily Wild West sensibilities require considerable expenditure of individual effort on other concerns: like living, security, etc. (virtually eliminating the benefits & efficiencies of a labour-specialised society) - which realistically means the devolution/fragmentation of the large complex nations we now have, probably in civil war, with the subsequent evolution of order-giving strongmen ... not unlike Russia today.

zac (who is replying to his own comment, btw

Re: My view...

[skinny-cartman.livejournal.com]

would tend to agree..
Leaders are leaders and ideologies are ideologies
Often a leader is giving a particular ideology his own slant or is reacting to socio-political or -economic needs or perceived needs.

Political thinkers and theorists like marx et al. often see things differently to leaders as well, partly due to being outside of structure and thus able to see its effects and needs better and partly because they don't see the realities of power.

a global union system..
In effect this has promise in theory however it would likely form into something different in practice for good or ill.
As such a thing could in effect be used in a syndicalist manner to move for greater political change globally and locally.

I would add

[(Anonymous)]

That I don't think capitalism often truly *creates* wealth. What capitalism generally does is find a resource - usually not recognised as one before, and exploits it and turns it into a tradeable commodity. This can be such personal resources as labour, health, progeny, and time - or public resources like uncontaminated air, water, land.

Again, I'm struck that it's all about accountancy. I'm also reminded of the many early papers arguing over the horrible inefficiencies of native economies during the expansion of mercantile empires in the 17th -19th centuries. Reminded that some of those 'inefficiencies' in fact maintained social order...and were themselves therefore investments that did bring returns.

We're now beginning to realise that there are ultimate limits to an individual's personal resources (demands of basic health, child safety & security, that chronic stress poses serious physiological harm), and that equally, global resources are ultimately fixed. In the US for example, domestic logging firms who care to compete against the foreign slashing generally do not care to conform to a tree plantation business model, they prefer tarriff protections and access to public parks. Perhaps a better example would be the collapsing global fishing stock ... difficult to adhere to existing property law, and hence are easy prey for piracy and privateering of all types from all nations

Re: I would add

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

If finding a resource, turning it into a product that people want, and marketing that product for a profit isn't creating wealth, then what is?

[souldier-blue.livejournal.com]

There is a big difference between communism and socialism...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

But left-wing economic & governmental models tend to have the same basic structure of increased centralisation of distribution; this leads inevitably to increased inefficiency and thence to increased unhappiness on the part of the greater population.

Mr Burns, I think we can trust the president of Cuba.

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

The Sandinistas left Cuba because they were wealthy land and property owners who weren't prepared to compromise their luxury lifestyle to subsidise the poor; a fine example of selfishness and self-interest overriding utilitarian principles.

Oh, and Hitler was a National Socialist. Ie. as long as Germany was "correctly" stratified, the rest of the world could like in an oligarchy if it wanted. He fully intended, once the Jews/Gypsies and other stragglers were removed from his empire, to roll this out across the sudetenland of the then Czechoslokavia, Poland, Austria et al. His imperialism only came to a head as a reactionary measure to reduce the growing opposition from the Allied Countries and perceived repression from the terms of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty.

The trouble with any method of government, or any lifestyle, is that people will rarely willingly sacrifice what they have in order to support those with less. The reason why Stalinism and Leninism for that matter were self-interested was because they looked at an urban concentration, sending in the Ogpuro and Requisition sqauds to take all the food from the countries to feed the people of the cities. After all, they were more educated and closer with the weapons if a riot got underway. As a result, the people starved. Stailin also instituted a top-heavy triumvirate with Bukharin and some othe rbloke - he refused to relinquish control. However, Stalin also wanted Socialism in One Country. He wanted to make Russia self-sufficient and close its doors, and that was perhaps the wisest thing to do. Any system of government can only work if it's main contacts share the same systems. Witness what happened during Glasnost and Perestroika. Having succumbed to the pressures of Capitalism, seduced by what it could achieve through conquest, imperialism and a second class citizenship, the Free Market flooded Russia, leading to Mafia and Profiteering. People with capital bought up essentials and sold them at whatever price they wanted, just enough so that people could stretch to the cost, but respectable enough to make themselves a profit. 1 in 6 Russians are now predicted to be HIV positive as a result of pursuit of 'luxuries' such as hardcore drugs and prostitution, and the African Countries are doing even worse.

The foundation for all government is Glaucon's Social Construct. People are nice to each other because they don't want people to be nasty to them. Large scale government doesn't work, because the end-decision makers are too far away from the majority of end-users, and as such become a Heideggerian 'Other' something which is opposite to them and not of their flesh.

Re: Mr Burns, I think we can trust the president of Cuba.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Yes, agreed. 'Big' government is a failed prospect. Government should fulfil basic responsibilities of the state, such as providing defence, law enforcement, and security, and then leave the rest to the citizenry. Left wing modfels of government and economy lead inevitably to 'big' government as they increase the beaurocratic means of distribution, and therefore by definition are repressive and 'bad'.

Re: Mr Burns, I think we can trust the president of Cuba.

[(Anonymous)]

Also...

> "Having succumbed to the pressures of Capitalism, seduced by what it could achieve through conquest, imperialism and a second class citizenship, the Free Market flooded Russia, leading to Mafia and Profiteering. People with capital bought up essentials and sold them at whatever price they wanted, just enough so that people could stretch to the cost, but respectable enough to make themselves a profit."

I'd add that those individuals with the capital were pretty much the individuals who had the capital before the fall of communism - the Party members, some generals, and the black marketeers (that is also to say that some individuals were all 3). So the ideology may have changed, but many of the faces did not/have not.

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

Oh, and it's not the basic rate of tax that needs to be altered, but a second grade kicking in at around £100,000 of 60% and maybe a third of 80% at £500,000. I mean, that's just stupid amounts of money. And seeing as most of those people will be professional footballers, let's see THEM trying to make a living in the USA.

[puddingcat.livejournal.com]

Um - it would also cover a lot of senior managers in professional firms / companies - not only the non-exec directors who turn up for half an hour a year and get paid 6 figures for it, but also those who work upwards of 60-hour weeks.

I know that if I knew I'd only take home 10% of what I earned (after NI - not even going near VAT) - I wouldn't bother. People earn those salaries more often than not because nobody would do the work for less. Remove the money factor, and companies will struggle to operate.

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

Oh, and the American model sprang out of a move towards liberalism, after all. In a move away from the reign of George III, the constitution set out

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people" Representative Liberalism. I mean, how clearer do you want it to be. Of course, this didn't include women, slaves or the under thirties at that time, but mankind is getting more liberal as time goes on, I'm afraid. Next thing you know, they'll be letting women out during their Curse.

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

Oh, and don't I say "oh" a lot?

It's funny, but my written conversation has a great deal of quirks and characteristics to it that I don't employ in my verbal.