The Irony Of Communist Countries...

[Hassan]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1283964671' post='2170029']
But here is the key difference... our capitalist companies do not promise workers good conditions. The Communist government, by definition, is supposed to protect the working class.

Our system is working just as it should - maybe if we want to change our system we can. Their system is failing them.
[/quote]


A communist government is. The revolutionaries didn't claim to have implemented a fully communist government. Marxist theory always acknowledged that the transformation to communism was a gradual process that could only come about after societies had progressed from more primitive economic systems (like from feudalism to capitalism to socialism and eventually to a truly communist society).

I don't see how you could claim that China's system is failing them compared to ours. China recently passed Japan as the second largest economy in the world. In a few decades they have emerged from a weak, pitiful country to a giant on the world stage. China has radically improved the lives of most of it's population beyond what anyone thought possible even in the 1970's and their trajectory is pretty bright. The status of the American worker is in decline. Wages have stalled out. Adjusted for inflation, the average American is making less now than they did a few decades ago China is exactly the opposite.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1283892778' post='2169298']
So I was thinking about this for some reason, maybe after reading the socalism thread...

Does it seem ironic to anyone else that China probably, the most economically "advanced" communist country, also has some of the most worst working conditions? I mean they're getting better... but I thought communist countries were supposed to protect the rights of the workers? Seems to me they're getting paid the least, working the longest hours, and in the worst conditions...

Seems to me that if I am a worker I do not want a communist government - a weird paradox?
[/quote]

No, it's no more ironic than Nixon saying "I am not a crook." It's not ironic, just a lie. Lies are sometimes the foundation for an entire system. It's still a lie, even if people believe the lie.

~Sternhauser

[un.privileged]

[quote name='Hassan' timestamp='1284933826' post='2174701']
That's croutons. An entirely free market is hardly the greatest economic system. Not even close. There are periodic market collapses, the crushing poverty that the lower classes existed in during the heyday of lazzie-fair capitalism (Dickens, anyone?), or the tremendous inefficiency that totally free markets produce (in the form of monopolies and other phenomena). Communism also made lower classes in their countries far more wealthy than at any point in their history. An Russian living in the USSR in the 1970's was tremendously more wealthy than the average citizen had been at any point in Russia's history.

Vibrant, free markets can be a very powerful tool for inspiring innovation and lifting people out of poverty. You're confusing a mean with an end, turning a powerful economic tool into an economic end in itself.
[/quote]
The Government has always been responsible for intensifying and prolonging depression during the market collapse.
[url="http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf"]America's Great Depression[/url] (link) by Murray Rothbard
[url="http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:0tglZ4vfG_4J:mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf+the+myth+of+natural+monopoly&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjOChikcBCZKJH0eWCtRGIcPKCjQv9W0Rx-XliEBspu_q0XDHFe42AY64o0MoPf-Q8ZlZYqOk-vQKAxXZO0UPtiC469cw3bK95Cpea96togqpfQbrhXGIkYZw4ExJKv2CpsEBpQ&sig=AHIEtbSwRwJa1eU9fISPQFmAFeELxvtFSA"]The Myth of Natural Monopoly[/url] (link)by Thomas DiLorenzo.

[RandomProddy]

Oh I think we can come up with some more..

The fact that the most class-ridden societies on earth are Communist ones that preach equality?

The fact that they preach atheism yet have a godlike cult of personality around the leader and to criticize them is blasphemy?

I'm just getting warmed up!..

[C Martel]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1283905619' post='2169410']
It makes perfect sense when you're willing to recognize that an entirely free market is far and away the greatest economic system, and the only sure-fire way to make the lower class richer than they've ever been at any point throughout history.
[/quote]


Perfectly said!

Unrelated, Father Kolbe was truly a great man. Great avatar.

[Winchester]

[quote name='C Martel' timestamp='1285872663' post='2176982']
Perfectly said!

Unrelated, Father Kolbe was truly a great man. Great avatar.
[/quote]
You're new here so I'm going to do you a favor and tell you nobody here likes nihil. Even when he says stuff right. nihil eats kittens; he's a monster.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Winchester

[Mr.Cat]

Personally I wouldn't interpret or define China as a communist country, though admittedly that is what they claim to be. I see China as a dictatorship, which seems to be what the 20th and 21st century attempts to establish communism has resulted in. Notice "[i]attempts to establish[/i]", even Karl Marx suggested that true communism was centuries away and felt that the government he proposed merely brought about this supposed utopia more expediently. So even if China WAS OR IS communist, by any definition or interpretation, their not. So with that being said, maybe you can start to see why I find it difficult to call them communist. Moreover because in the 21st century there is NOW private property in China and more capitalism, otherwise American corporations would not be there. But China being the SECOND most powerful economy in the world I am sure counts for little in this discussion...

But the problem with this whole thread is the same issue I had before, the interchangeable exchange of words of socialism for communism. The United States is not a purely capitalistic state, by any definition its not, and argumentatively it never was. Ever since the "New Deal" (1933) started to happen in the United States we technically would classify as a socialist state, at least it could be interpreted and defined that way. So no one here can point to the United States within the past hundred years and pretend that we enjoy the fruits of pure capitalism, its a straw-man argument and deceptive.

The Church even proposes "[i]social doctrine[/i]" which could classify as a kind of socialism ([i]was never addressed in the other topic[/i]). But honestly the irony of the discussion is to criticize socialism there is the want to criticize communism. Even more ironically the goals of socialism are the well-being of individuals and society which by definition is not the concern of capitalism, but is exactly why communism is criticized because their supposedly not taking the well-being of their population and society into account. Then the plea of "[i]freedom[/i]" comes in, which its pointed out every socialist nation I can think of in the 21st century has every fundamental freedom that the United States has and freedom isn't inherent to pure capitalism ([i]pure capitalists, conservative libertarians, argue that even slavery must be allowed for its the freedom of people to own other people[/i]). So it is VERY ironic indeed.

So what I see is people shouting out here on Phatmass, "[b]I hate Communism[/b]", which I think to myself the chances of them really understanding what that really means is rare, but I find myself agreeing. I don't want Communism either, I personally disagree with it. But the thing I find EXTREMELY amusing is this insistence that socialism IS communism and anyone who points out the flaws of that argument is SECRETLY a communist too! Maybe Senator Joseph McCarthy would still find support today, when he was in office one of his strongest support bases was Catholics... Communists are EVERYWHERE!!!

Edited September 30, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Winchester]

The Church does not support state socialism. It does support something which resembles socialism, but isn't.

No one has argued that the US is purely capitalist.


Make an argument that communism is not a form of socialism. You seem to think that people use the words as completely interchangeable. You're again falling into the trap of criticizing not what's said, but what you have heard from others.

[Winchester]

How about this:


China has communist elements. It has capitalist elements which are manipulated by a leftist state.

The US has socialist elements with more capitalist elements than China. The capitalist elements are likewise manipulated by a leftist state with a loose socialist idea of wealth redistribution and social engineering.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1285886058' post='2177065']The Church does not support state socialism. It does support something which resembles socialism, but isn't.[/quote]Did I say it did, no.[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1285886058' post='2177065']No one has argued that the US is purely capitalist.[/quote]Agreed, but when its not communist and it's not capitalist, what is it? I see a strong resentment to call it what it is.[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1285886058' post='2177065']Make an argument that communism is not a form of socialism. You seem to think that people use the words as completely interchangeable. You're again falling into the trap of criticizing not what's said, but what you have heard from others.[/quote]Argumentatively we could say that Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism are all similar because they can be defined or interpreted as world religions. We could then pose further that Christianity and Islam are similar because they both claim to be monotheistic. Does this mean that Islam and Christianity are just different forms of the same ideology, I would propose no.

For that same reason argumentatively capitalism, socialism, and communism are economic systems that share fundamental similarities and goals. It seems what your telling me that in the lineup because socialism appears to be the cream that keeps those two oreos apart makes it accessory to communism, I would tend to argue no more than its accessory to capitalism. Socialist states haven't abandoned free enterprise or free market, in fact they have guaranteed it and reinforced it.

But as for the words being used interchangeably, this thread supposedly was spawned from our discussions on socialism that you instigated, SO what better example of irony than to discuss communism! Fail!

Edited September 30, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Winchester]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1285888075' post='2177079']
Did I say it did, no[/quote]
I didn't say you did. I was making a distinction.


[quote]Agreed, but when its not communist and it's not capitalist, what is it? I see a strong resentment to call it what it is.[/quote]
It could be fascist. Most countries seem to have a mixture of economic/political systems.



[quote]Argumentatively we could say that Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism are all similar because they can be defined or interpreted as world religions. We could then pose further that Christianity and Islam are similar because they both claim to be monotheistic. Does this mean that Islam and Christianity are just different forms of the same ideology, I would propose no.[/quote]
State Socialism proposes to eliminate class disparities by enforcing certain requirements on business. Means of production is owned by the workers. Communism, which was seen by the Russians as a form of socialism, removes even that from the people. This isn't the same as equating them. I keep saying one is a form of the other. I could see a socialist saying that communism isn't acceptable because it's too extreme. The desire to divorce the two has to do with the fixation on Communism as the enemy.

[quote]For that same reason argumentatively capitalism, socialism, and communism are economic systems that share fundamental similarities and goals. [/quote]
Socialism and communism seek to end class distinctions. Capitalism seeks to make all capable (legally) of changing economic class. Not the same goals.

[quote]It seems what your telling me that in the lineup because socialism appears to be the cream that keeps those two ores apart that it makes it accessory to communism, I would tend to argue no more than its accessory to capitalism. Socialist states haven't abandoned free enterprise or free market, in fact they have guaranteed it and reinforced it.[/quote]
No. I'm saying that Communism is a form of Socialism. Communist states use the same economic rhetoric as Socialist states. They go a step further in removing real property (in greater or lesser extents) and in running most businesses. Western countries which have mixed elements of socialism into their free markets have used the same rhetoric of class warfare. In addition, they seem to encourage dependence upon the state. The US in particular uses the language of entitlement and seeks to demonize the rich (or at least the rich who aren't democrats. Apparently Oprah's okay.) Actually, it seems that one element seeks to upgird the free market and the other seeks to undermine it. The obsession with small businesses notwithstanding.

[quote]But as for the words being used interchangeably, this thread supposedly was spawned from our discussions on socialism that you instigated, SO what better example of irony than to discuss communism! Fail!
[/quote]
Cool story, bro.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1285889194' post='2177087']I didn't say you did. I was making a distinction.[/quote]Which is?[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1285889194' post='2177087']It could be fascist. Most countries seem to have a mixture of economic/political systems.[/quote]The United States is fascist? I must of missed that in my lectures of political philosophy regarding economies.[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1285889194' post='2177087']State Socialism proposes to eliminate class disparities by enforcing certain requirements on business. Means of production is owned by the workers. Communism, which was seen by the Russians as a form of socialism, removes even that from the people. This isn't the same as equating them. I keep saying one is a form of the other. I could see a socialist saying that communism isn't acceptable because it's too extreme. The desire to divorce the two has to do with the fixation on Communism as the enemy.[/quote]There is no need to divorce, their all a happy family. But your distinction about socialism seems unfounded, considering no socialist state that I'm faimilar with is doing this.[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1285889194' post='2177087']Socialism and communism seek to end class distinctions. Capitalism seeks to make all capable (legally) of changing economic class. Not the same goals.[/quote]Err... Unfounded again...[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1285889194' post='2177087']No. I'm saying that Communism is a form of Socialism. Communist states use the same economic rhetoric as Socialist states. They go a step further in removing real property (in greater or lesser extents) and in running most businesses. Western countries which have mixed elements of socialism into their free markets have used the same rhetoric of class warfare. In addition, they seem to encourage dependence upon the state. The US in particular uses the language of entitlement and seeks to demonize the rich (or at least the rich who aren't democrats. Apparently Oprah's okay.) Actually, it seems that one element seeks to upgird the free market and the other seeks to undermine it. The obsession with small businesses notwithstanding.[/quote]Class warfare in the United States? Dependency on the State? Demonization of the rich!? Where do YOU live?

[center][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkXTd9v56LQ[/media][/center]