A theory on economic swings. Capitalism/Communism

[FDRrocks]

Marx had an idea. An idea that the excesses of Capitalism would eventually lead to worldwide Communism.

I think he was half-wrong.

Heres my deal. In the early 19th century, many European and Asian developed countries were faced with the prospect of a Communist revolution. Some fell, such as the obvious, Russia and China. In other countries, a similar trend was occuring. In America, specifically, we had the progressive era. Populists and Socialists parties were doing well. FDR was kicking ass and taking names and being called a 'socialist dictator' for it. (I'm talking powerful countries, here. Not the smaller nations that have been compelled towards Communism)

I think Marx was right in predicting society would swing towards a communist end naturally. Russia went communist, although Lenin foresaw it as a dictatorship. It is unclear if he wanted to expand drastically once Russia got its feet on the ground b/c the man died within years of taking power. He told a member of the congress he thought a dictatorship of the proletariate was "the only way"... Whether he meant Russia needs a strong central government (not in line with Marxist theory as far as I know), or whether it needs a 'command center' to spread Communism (kinda in line... i suppose), I do not know. Then they got Stalin. His methods were brutal but he had a clear cut plan to brutally bring Communism to the world. While I agree with the ideals of Communism I do not believe world Communism under Stalin or Kruschev would've worked out to help any of the common man.

Germany really made the difference for Russia... if they had fell... well, we'd either be in utopia or a dictatorship. Instead the dissendents were executed. I don't know much but apparently they had a period of a week where they were forming a weak intermitant social democracy such as Russia had before the Bolshevik revolution.

China went Communist, and it has been pretty much non-incendental. The capitalist powers, nowadays, seem to see it as a source for cheap labor moreso than it sees it as a threat. That might change with continued capital flight, but we'll see. China is definately deplorable, and is still a state, therefore it cannot be a true Marxist commune.

I might be rambling or reciting what I know on the topic that doesn't really pertain. But what follows is my point.

Marx foresaw a world commune. A restoration of civilized humanity. He was wrong. I think that the unanticipated interuption by corrupt individuals and very powerful capitalist nations stopped the natural swing towards a Communist world. Furthermore, I think that had things occured naturally w/o bourgeois and asshole interruption, that the world would eventually swing towards Communism and back to Capitalism and then back to Communism and so forth.

I base this all on my readings and speeches I have heard. Along with general observations.

What do you think?

Sorry for inconsistencies, I'm not exactly sober.

[DeathvadeR]

1. Democracy has proven itself unsafe for humans on this planet.

It's not only allowing the environment to fail but has just as much if not more room for corruption then communism does.

I feel it should blend between a communisistic/democratic structure that has checks and balances.



ANother thing is if we don't all work togeather to break down so called Nations and form a unitary planet, very bad tremendous,horrible wars will occur in the very near future over resources. Iraq is one in a series and many more to folow suit. In an age with WMD's someone is gonna get hurt.

[FDRrocks]

3. Thats how I feel...

and I think it might've eventually developed that way.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Capitalism is like Mom and Black Forest Cake

If you eat all your vegetables, Mom will let you have a big piece of Black Forest Cake. She knows that vegetables aren't your favorite, and you need some cake as an incentive and just because it tastes good, but she also knows that if she gave you ONLY cake, you would not grow up strong with healthy teeth.

It's the same with economies.

Once all your people are fed, housed and doctored, you can have a big piece of Capitalism with Free Market on top :)

Balance is how economies grow and societies progress.

[FDRrocks]

7. From what I've read and discusse

Marixsm seems to be about humanity, Capitalism didn't inherit the right system in the countries it fell to, and Communism didn't inherit the right system to work on (Marx said it needed a strong Capitalist world to start off of).

It's very contrived. Right now I know we are ruled by Corporate interests.... and it makes me wonder.

[knowledgeispower]

38. I think the Marxist revolution is yet to come (if it does)

We are entering an age where, through globalization, capitalism truly dominates every society on the planet. If ever a Marxist revolution were to occur, this would be the time. Marx wrote about industrialization as the driving force behind communism, but he didn't foresee that globalization would multiply the force of industrialization exponentionally (is that a word?).

[DuctapeFatwa]

39. It needs to be more of a moderation revolution

Whenever societies place ANY ism, be it Marxism, capitalism, whateverism, above the well-being of the people, you end up with a useless mess.

Once the odds of upward mobility get too close to those of winning the power ball, and the free market cost of a day's work falls below the free market cost of a day's survival, you no longer have a free market, you no longer have capitalism.

You have feudalism.

By the same token, North Korea is a good example of how placing selected precepts of Marxism above the welfare of the people morphs into totalitarianism.

A balanced diet is made up of all the food groups :)

[leftyandproud]

4. capitalism will NEVER die..

I think we must accept this. The so-called free market truly is human nature...It is simply natural behavior unrestrained by government. It would be LOVELY if this wee not so...if we could all work together without the desire for material gain...but I've come to the conclusion that is just isn't possible. Human behavior can be changed by government...but h uman NATURE can never be changed. People will always be greedy and selfish...and the best way to satisfy greed is to satisfy the wants and desires of others at the lowest possible cost to you. If I make good hamburgers, and a few neighbors come by, I charge them .50 each, and make a .20 cent profit...They get what they want. I get what I want...money. Mutual exchange for mutual benefit...We aren't "cooperating" in the sense that socialism means...I'm not getting free bread and meat from the grocer, cooking it for free on my free gas grill, then handing it to them becauce they are good people...I'm buying the materials and making the burgers because I can make cash off of them...the grocer makes money off of me...the charcoal and gas grill manufacturers make money...we all get what we want...We all make money and walk away happy with absolutely ZERO "cooperation".

granted, this may be a stupid example...but it goes to show that even in the smallest microcosms of life, people will always be interested in profit...They will always be happy to make money. This is human nature, and will always exist...with or without the intrusion of government into their affairs.

[FDRrocks]

5. Marx also foresaw

a change in the way people picture the world. A view contradictory to what you stated. People would think differently in the new world.

That comes from my friend taking the class at Loyala College. People would adapt to the new society.

That doesn't seem so farfetched to me. Is capitalism ingrained? or just learned?

[DeathvadeR]

10. no I understood....

I'd love to still think that we as humans can look beyond that whole "survival of the fittist" mantality and bond togeather in unity but I think it will take nothing short of Jesus himself coming back for this to happen.

[A HERETIC I AM]

20. in my opinion, ONLY capitalism exists...the difference is...

how many are allowed to participate and to what degree. If you havent seen it, i recommend renting the movie "Network". There is a scene where the antagonist is being dressed down by the head of the corp. (Ned Beatty, if memory serves) Ned says something to the effect of; "You think the Russians or the Chinese are worried about who will think what and walk where or say whatever? HELL NO!! They are looking at their balance sheets. They are concerned whether or not the earnings in the coming quarter will cover their liabilities! They are no different than us!"
The LAST thing Lenin and Stalin and Mao, for that matter, were concerned with was living up to Marx's suggestions. They used that as a ruse to convince a MASSIVE, very spread out, mostly poor and undereducated, peasant population to follow them for their own benefit. Of course, a few preceding centuries of Czarist/Emperorist oppression and economic rape didnt hurt their cause one bit. I have recently realized that no thing...not one single effort or human endeavor EVER done was done for any reason any more complex than for either greed or ego. Some might say "What about religion?" i say ...ego...nothing more. The founding fathers of our nation did what they did out of a combined sense of both. Greed was a primary motivator combined with an altruistic sensibility for the masses, driven by the fact that doing good things makes one feel good - ego - not to mention telling a King to go stuff himself is quite fun! I must admit, i have yet to read the "Communist Manifesto" but from what i know of it's principles, the Lakota Souix and most other tribes in the Americas had it all over Marx centuries before he took pen in hand. Being communal with possesions and production is not a new idea by any stretch. Money always rises to the top. Always. And money is only made when wealth is created by the production of goods or services. The hamburger analogy is fine and true, but there are an awful lot of others in that chain. The growers, the slaughtermen, the shippers, etc. Think of a potter or a brickmaker or even the Ford Motor Company of 1927. They mined their own ore, made their own steel and built cars. THAT is capitalism. and it's usefulness will never disappear IF it is tempered with a healthy dose of Socialism (Unions, etc) and appropriate government regulation. Sorry about the length of this rant!

[Zorra]

6. Lenin hated Stalin,

and warned about letting him get into power. But Stalin kept having all his rivals asassinated, took control of the "secret police" and Lenin died, and Stalin took power. I think Lenin had a much different vision for Russia than what Stalin brought about.

I think we will see a shift to the left in many third world countries as the US gets continually weakened through its quest for empire.

[FDRrocks]

8. Yup Lenin wanted Trotsky...

and Krupskaya read the note aloud in the Congress, and a former Menshevik stood up and said Lenin was in bad health when he wrote it. Lenin wanted Stalin kicked out.... they ignored. The rest is horrible history.

[jeter]

9. Lenin appointed Stalin

He only began to think of Stalin as dangerous at the very end. But it was Lenin (who was no angel himself) who gave Stalin all his powers.

Never forget that.

[FDRrocks]

12. Lenin appointed him to small posts.

He wrote an anti-Stalin manifesto, calling for the removal of him from the whole system. In that same paper he promoted Trotsky. The message was ignored when his wife read it to the congress, under circumstances I stated above.

The congress ignored it, Trotsky was removed from the country in chains, and eventually got an icepick in his head via Stalin.

He did not give Stalin all his powers. On the eastern front in the civil war Trotsky wrote Lenin asking Stalin to be removed from his post (due to his opposition to Trotskys methods) and Lenin removed him but didn't send him to Siberia.

Lenin didn't know then, but when he learned, he tried his wheelchaired health-plagued best. And yes he was no angel, but the killing was done by beaurocracies within his system. You can't compare him to Stalin or Hitler, but you could compare him to many modern dictators.

[sandnsea]

11. Wealth from wealth

Isn't that what capitalism actually is? Making money by supplying capital? Not making money off your labor.

Maybe we just need a new word, laborism, to differentiate from the more harmful capitalism. I think our founders were more labor oriented and rejected the concept of the idle rich which is true capitalism.

[FDRrocks]

13. I know the current system is fucked.

Recently, I take the estate tax. It was in there to prevent the building of dynasties, yet the conservative congress wouldn't even let it pass if the tax only applied to inheritance above $8mil.

Beyond that, corporations rule this state and are starting to trample the world. Such as Bush threatening (or actually) sueing the EU for rejecting GM foods.

Laborism would be Communism I believe. Democracy is rule by the people (ideally) and Communism is rule by the proletariate or wage laborers (ideally). We have neither here in the USA.

[camero]

16. You bring up a very good point

Both are systems ideally ruled by the commen man, but has been corrupted by the privilege of the elite. The party apparatus in the Communist system and by the Corporate elite in the democratic one.

To me, I think a social democracy is the best way to go with balance in the economy to make sure noone gets too low or too high.

Which means that limits need to be set on what one person can attain because money and power does indeed corrupt.
edit: for spelling, doh.

[FDRrocks]

17. Thank you.

And I agree. We need a balance b/t the two systems. But shit is so downhill. We have advanced nukes everywhere and it's gonna peak as some point. Unfortunately, alot of people love the idea the they will die and meet thier supernatural god that many don't give a shit.

Our environment, our earth, our way of life. Good luck to the cockroaches :(

[camero]

22. I would love to meet my god, but not violently

I think it is very sad that people feel this way. Which makes it even more important that we take back our government through the democratic process and jail the traitors like Bush who would destroy our country and world.

[A HERETIC I AM]

26. i disagree....see my above post...

if you take something of little or no value, (clay) modify it using your abilities and talents, turn it into something others will want and be willing to pay for (Bricks)...THAT is capitalism in it's purest form. Isnt it?

[camero]

30. not quite

The theory of capitalism by Adam Smith was that others would also be making clay and selling bricks, thus giving people freedom of choice to get the lowest price. The quasi-monopolies we have today goes directly against this.

[A HERETIC I AM]

32. fair enough

::: Adds Adam Smith to the "Must read" list:::

[SahaleArm]

33. Wealth of Nations and...

Das Kapital. Good starters books.

[leftyandproud]

37. two books that..

everybody talks about...and NOBODY reads..

it sure does make you feel smart when you recommend them though ;)

[rman]

35. hoarding of resources..

creating stashes of wealth (resources, money); idle wealth does not contribute to the economy/the common good, it only contributes to the interests of those who create the stashes.

[fabius]

14. Social Capitalism

What we need is Social Capitalism. Such as in Europe but with more of the grassroots American type democracy. We need to overthrow the corporate control of our democracy which is subverting both democracy and free markets.

Marx was wrong, people will never change. Therefore our institutions need to avoid giving any one group or faction or individual too much power. Our Founders understood that, in terms of political power. What they didn't fully plan for was the concentration of industrial financial power, since it didn't exist in its present form.

Read the following on corporate power:

http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/03-6om/Kaplan.html

Corporatism run wild is what is subverting our democratic institutions.

When robber-baron capitalism failed in the early 1900's and again in the 1930's, TR and FDR effectively saved capitalism from itself by instituting corporate regulation and social welfare reforms. If not for these great men, the US could have gone communist.

As to the worldwide commie threat, it is interesting to read the words of George McGovern, a great American patriot who actually fought in a necessary war:

In the years immediately following World War II, thanks to the leadership of men such as the late Senator Vandenberg, our foreign policy was conducted in a bipartisan manner largely free from political rancor and partisan duels. This was the period which launched the United Nations, the Marshall Plan, Point IV, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


But with the triumph of Communism in China in 1949, the North Korean attack of 1950, and the breaking of our nuclear monopoly by the Soviet Union, the comparative confidence and calm of post-war American foreign policy were shattered. The first strains of the postwar world were beginning to wear on the American public even before the Korean conflict.


It was these cold-war tensions which set the stage for the poisoning of American political life by the late Senator McCarthy in the early 1950s. Many government officials and politicians still find it expedient to demonstrate their "Americanism" by frequent outbursts of rhetoric directed at the Communist enemy. The two political parties, having generally agreed on basic foreign policy objectives, wage a recurring battle over which party is taking the harder line against the Communists.

In other words, although Stalinism and communism were a real threat, there was a tendency to overstate the expansionist nature of the threat for political reasons. And to question the other party's patriotism. Sound familiar?

The most successful economies in the world,the US, the EU, and Japan, all incorporate a mix of capitalist and socialist features. The right question is how much you want of each.

[FDRrocks]

15. How though?

I think the ultimate end to all societies will be a Social Democracy. A balance of both extremes.

But right now every viable party in our system is beholden by powerful interests.

What is there to do? That is what matters. Our society and our earth are collapsing, WTF can we do about it?

[w4rma]

18. China is a fascist state. It is no longer Communist,

but it is still totalitarian, except now it is capitalist:

PBS: So it's no longer a communist state?
Kissinger: I don't consider China a communist state, no. I know that sounds paradoxical, but it's my view.

PBS: It's not a party of the workers and the peasants?
Kissinger: Certainly not a party of the workers and the peasants. In fact, Jiang Zemin in recent weeks has officially said that capitalists and the entrepreneurs should be enrolled in the Communist Party.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/china/interviews/kissinger.html

capitalism and socialism are opposite ends of an axis.
democracy and dictatorship/monarchy are opposite ends of another axis.

A state can be totalitarian and capitalist (fascism):

“Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” -- Benito Mussolini

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.” -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

A state can be totalitarian and socialist (communism)
A state can be democratic and capitalist.
A state can be democratic and socialist.
A state can be anywhere inbetween the two axis. The U.S. has both capitalist policies and socialist policies.

Here is a list of some of the socialist ones:
socialized armed forces
socialized water
socialized police
socialized fired department
social(ized) security
medicare
road building/maintanance
public waste and water treatment
public schools

[FDRrocks]

19. Words from Kissinger mean jack to me.

That man is a horrible human. Although I agree that China used the Communist label to institute a more or less fascist state.

[fabius]

21. Actually Russia is following China...

...into the fascist realm. Pootie is no more a democratic ruler than Bush is. And he has no institutional restraints really.

So Putin is going to be Stalin without the socialism. And China is going to be the slave labor corporo-fascist feudal state to beat all. Ugly future.

[FDRrocks]

24. Putin seems half decent.

I know he is ex KGB and all, but I think if he tries to go too far the Mafia powers in Russia would off him.

I hope Russia doesn't get subjugated to foreign economics. They can learn from the western world and develop quite the social-democracy, and possibly be a more moderate balance to the advanced capitalist state we have. Good luck to them.

[camero]

23. missed one on the socialist ones

socialized medicine

[George_Bonanza]

25. I can see Marx's point

As countries first start to develop, wealth comes first, as it should. No country can start to get ahead of itself without a strong base of funds to use and hand out. Once a country gets rich enough and secure enough, then their interests move away from themselves into more grander and benevolent branches. Like how once people make it rich, they give to charities. You gotta be rich first to freely give away money. So once a capitalist country is rich and powerful enough, it can start thinking of others more.

[camero]

27. The flaw in that

Rich people don't freely give thier money away. They work to protect thier wealth. Bill Gates foundations are a very rare occurence in this society.

[FDRrocks]

29. The trust that Marx held...

that people would turn towards a humanistic phase rather than a selfish state was one of his main ideas.

The man was definately an idealist, but I think he is much too slandered. This man really loved humanity.

[camero]

31. I agree

I just think he had too much faith in it.

[SahaleArm]

34. It defys the laws of nature.

Self-interest and species procreation are intrinsic to all animals.

[camero]

36. Right you are

That's why we can never eliminate it, we can only harness it.

[FDRrocks]

28. Some things I forgot....

my thesis is based on the fact that this period (first half of the 19th century) happened across the major powers at the same time, leading me to believe it was almost a natural thing.

This same idea led me to believe that Marx isn't so far off.

[mlawson]

40. Russia went state socialist, not communist.

*Pure communism*, again, does not require a state, much less one in which all factors of production are owned by it (state socialism). Under Marx' ideal of pure communism, workers would go back to the pre-Industrial Revolution times, when they were 'free' to choose which work they would do, as opposed to being forced to work in factories in order to survive. Production would be communal, and distribution would be according to need.

The Soviet Union co-opted the name 'communism' for political reasons. Marx never heard of either Lenin or Stalin, as he died when they were children. But it was socialism, propped up by a military dictatorship.