Socialism Vs. Capitalism

[marxist]

(Mod's note: This thread was split from

a previous thread where it first arose.)

Who Will Win: Marx or Christ?...

what do you mean about marx?

i am not an american.

can anyone here in american tell me the marxism's position in USA. does anyone in USA get a systematic marxism education.

what is america style marxism in the future and if it is possible for USA to be a socilism society within next 20years.

Edited June 15, 2006 by softwareNerd

[Bold Standard]

what do you mean about marx?

i am not an american.

can anyone here in american tell me the marxism's position in USA. does anyone in USA get a systematic marxism education.

what is america style marxism in the future and if it is possible for USA to be a socilism society within next 20years.

No political party built consistently on an explicitly Marxist platform is taken seriously in the US. But there are strong elements of socialism built into our political framework even at the present time. Marxist influence can be detected in the positions of both parties (Republicans tend to favor social controls and Democrats favor economic ones). America is not "capitalist," it is a "mixed economy," which means it has elements of freedom (capitalism, individual rights, representative government) and tyranny (socialism, oppression, dictatorship) mixed up together (with the majority of politicians existing somewhere in the "middle of the road" between these two extremes). For the past 100 years or so, America has been moving slowly in the direction of socialism-- but in the next 20 years, I'd say anything can happen. I don't know about a "systematic" Marxist education, but it's certainly true that Karl Marx's ideas are highly visible on American college campuses. It seems to me that Marxist intellectuals have for the most part, lost their fire and commitment in the past couple of decades. Hence the disintegration of the Democratic Party (which was traditionally more open about accepting Marxism than the Republicans). What is the future for the Marxists? I'd say they'll keep trying to convince people that the dismal failure of every attempt at socialism in every country throughout the world is not socialism's fault, and that they'll eventually fade out completely, as their position becomes more and more obviously absurd; and as supporters of capitalism such as Objectivists become more successful at advocating a systematic, viable alternative. But maybe I'm being overly optimistic.

[marxist]

what do you mean about socialism? as per your thread, can i conclude that you consider the socialism as the tyranny. do you ever study On Capital (Ⅲ)? what do you think of chinese socialism?

in additon, could you please explain Objectivists to me, thanks in advance.

[softwareNerd]

Marxist, Welcome to the forum.

I suggest you go to the Ayn Rand Institute web-site and read the information they have got. Then, you might try our Wiki.

Are you able to order books from Amazon or from EBay etc.? If so, we can recommend some. Just recently I heard that a mainland Chinese publisher is in discussions to publish Ayn Rand's books in Mandarin; but that will probably take a while.

At least read those web-links, to get an overview.

[Bold Standard]

what do you mean about socialism? as per your thread, can i conclude that you consider the socialism as the tyranny. do you ever study On Capital (Ⅲ)? what do you think of chinese socialism?

in additon, could you please explain Objectivists to me, thanks in advance.

In short, I'm using socialism to stand for any political system in which the government has the power to seize private property through force, or to meddle in the "private sector", creating monopolies with which private businesses cannot compete, etc. I believe that Statism is the tyranny, in all of its variations-- socialism, Nazism, fascism, communism, etc. Capitalism, in its purest sense (unregulated, "laissez-faire" capitalism), I define as a political system which consistently upholds individual rights (personal rights belonging solely to individuals)-- including "life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness." I've studied Marx, but I haven't personally read all of Das Kapital. I'm only a student, and haven't studied Chinese socialism in depth, but I understand that in certain contexts, "socialism" is viewed as a "less extreme" form of "communism" (which is a system in which there is no private property or individual rights of any kind). If that's how you define it, I guess socialism is "better" than communism; but only as a matter of degree, not better in kind.

You see, what I call "capitalism" is a totally different approach to government, with different goals from socialism-- private property, representative government, individual rights, unregulated free markets, etc., exist in a capitalist system primarily for the purpose of allowing the minds of individuals to rise to their fullest potential, unhindered, to fulfill their own "selfish" ends (pursuit of happiness), "neither sacrificing themselves to others, or others to themselves" (to paraphrase Ayn Rand). And all of the values that these individuals create-- all the wealth, the technology, the innovations, inventions, etc., that they bring into existence, and all of the incalculable benefits which society experiences as a result of this, are noted and appreciated, but are secondary results, and not the primary justification for the existence of the capitalist system. The primary justification is the sanctity of the individual; the triumph of "right" over "might"; recognition of the fact that a human mind requires freedom to think on its own, and not to be forced to pursue goals which are foreign to it; and the recognition that Man is not a "sacrificial animal," but is rather an end in himself.

Objectivism is a philosophical system (which extends to all branches of philosophy, not limited to politics, but including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics) which was created and espoused by the 20th century novelist/philosopher, Ayn Rand. Miss Rand was born in Russia in 1905. She witnessed the Kerensky Revolution, and then the Bolshevik Revolution, first hand. She was educated in a Soviet university (she studied Das Kapital). She was a fierce opponent of communism and a staunch individualist, even while she lived in Russia. Knowing that her political ideas were placing herself and her family in danger, she escaped Russia and came to America in 1926. She wrote for the movies, became famous as a novelist, and then as a philosopher.

Her most important works explicitly regarding politics are Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal (non-fiction, 1966), and Atlas Shrugged (fiction, 1957).

Edited June 15, 2006 by Bold Standard

[marxist]

I think you misunderstand the socialism. I would say that the Statism like the Soviet Union and China is not socialism at all. In socialism society, the planned economy under worker’s democracy means the most to socialism. As you know, in capitalism, there are economic crisis, so we need the planned economy under worker’s democracy to solve it. In capitlism, the workers or the most of the people only have the “right” to sell their labour force and have the virtual individual rights as they are under the rule of the capitalist. Now america is a rich and developed country while many other countrys are still poor and undeveloped. What would happened to america if there are no these many other countrys in the world. Can you live well without other people around you. Socialism means the real freedom and no one and nothing would force him to do what he don’t want to do in socialism society while in capitalism, the boss and the capital force you to do what you don’t want to do. In socialism society, Man is not a "sacrificial animal," but a free man with ample human nature.

As to the Objectivism, I got to know something about it by your kind explaining and

Ayn Rand Institute web-site , but can you confirm it means another fierce opponent of communism and a staunch individualist

In short, I think maybe your socialism and communism or any other “ism” are not mine.

[Bold Standard]

I would say that the Statism like the Soviet Union and China is not socialism at all.

There are different kinds of Statism. USSR was, and China is communist. Germany, in WWII was Nazi. Socialism is much milder-- England comes to mind (maybe there are better examples of socialist countries). Socialism has been described as a "transitional" stage between capitalism and dictatorship.

In socialism society, the planned economy under worker’s democracy means the most to socialism. As you know, in capitalism, there are economic crisis, so we need the planned economy under worker’s democracy to solve it.

What is this "planning"? It is some people ("the regime") telling others what to do. Not just telling, but forcing; and confiscating property. Professionals can handle crises fine on their own without bureaucrats, who sometimes know nothing about how to solve the problem, "helping" them in this manner. Even if central planning were able to solve crises efficiently, which it has never been able to do successfully in any country in history, it is still immoral inasmuch as it prevents people from being the beneficiaries of their own actions. Instead of one person acting, selling his labor, for instance, or (more importantly) selling his ideas, and keeping the profit he makes; one person acts, and "society" benefits-- but the profits are stolen from the man who earned them (compulsory taxation is just one means to that end), and "redistributed" to others who haven't earned them. This is unjust. And unnecessary (for society), because free markets have proven themselves as the most efficient solvers of the various "crises" that can arise. Even if it were not so, freedom would be worth the additional risk of possible crises.

In capitalism, the workers or the most of the people only have the “right” to sell their labor force and have the virtual individual rights as they are under the rule of the capitalist.

The workers also have the right to invest the money they make, from the labor they sell, and to buy their own means of production. This is how we have the phenomenon of the "self-made-man," who never existed before capitalism.

Now America is a rich and developed country while many other countries are still poor and undeveloped. What would happened to America if there are no these many other countries in the world. Can you live well without other people around you.

You can live well without others, although the values gained from trading with others are immense. Americans would have to work a lot harder if all of the other countries were to suddenly vanish. But, to the extent we are free, we could survive.

Socialism means the real freedom and no one and nothing would force him to do what he don’t want to do in socialism society while in capitalism, the boss and the capital force you to do what you don’t want to do.

In capitalism, a boss can never force you to do something you don't want to do. You can always quit your job, and get another one or start your own business. The reason that a socialistic regime can force people is this-- they have the guns. If someone in a capitalist system threatens to kill or abduct you if you don't do what they want, you call the police. In a socialist system-- it is the police threatening to kill or abduct you if you don't do what they want. (I know I'm simplifying, but, in essence..)

As to the Objectivism, I got to know something about it by your kind explaining and

Ayn Rand Institute web-site , but can you confirm it means another fierce opponent of communism and a staunch individualist

Yes, that's the end result of it. But there are more fundamental or underlying premises which Objectivism identifies that lead it to that conclusion. Ayn Rand once said, "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."

It is Objectivism's theory of knowledge (its "epistemology"), its theory of the nature of reality (its "metaphysics"), and its uncompromising consistency which make it most unique. Individualism and anti-communism are strong elements of Ayn Rand's ethical/political stance, so they are important elements of Objectivism (but they do not exhaust the entire contents of Objectivism). To put that a different way, collectivism and pro-communism would be antithetical to the philosophy of Objectivism. Or a third way: it's possible to be an individualist and an anti-communist without being an Objectivist, but if you are an Objectivist, you must be an individualist and an anti-communist (Objectivism is one "species" of the "genus" individualism and anti-communism).

In short, I think maybe your socialism and communism or any other “ism” are not mine.

Well, maybe not. Of course, you must believe something, but there's no reason it has to be anything that's been organized into a formal political position (and even so, there's no guarantee that I'm personally aware of it).

Edited June 15, 2006 by Bold Standard

[softwareNerd]

I think you misunderstand the socialism. I would say that the Statism like the Soviet Union and China is not socialism at all. ... ...

... ...

In short, I think maybe your socialism and communism or any other “ism” are not mine.

Many people say this: "Socialism/theocracy/capitalism/other-ISM is good, but it is being practiced wrong". Our objection is not simply to the practice of socialism, but to the theory itself. Our main objection is not about the economics, but the moral aspect.

To an Objectivist, each man has the right to his life and the property he creates. No other man, whether he be a capitalist or a "people's representative" should be allowed to violate an individual's rights by telling him what to do with property that is his or telling him what to do with his life. No central planner has the right to tell anyone what to do. A capitalist does not have the right to tell others what to do either -- though he does have the right to dispose his own property the way he sees fit -- even if he is unreasonable. Each person has the right to be completely unreasonable (unless he is using force against someone else).

As we define it, in Capitalism, the government does not exist to ensure that people are economically well off and provided for; it does not exist to see that GDP is maximized or that the poor have food to eat. The only moral purpose of government is to protect the right of life and property of its individual citizens.

What about practice? Let us assume that there are no truly socialist nations. On the other hand, there are no truly capitalist ones either. So, we can glean what we can from looking at nations that are more and less socialistic and nations that are more and less capitalistic. Check out this post to understand what it means to be a poor person, "oppressed by capitalists" in America.

I think it's virtually impossible to convince someone about Socialism/Capitalism in the context of a forum, if they're coming from an avowed socialistic viewpoint. Each question leads to others. (e.g. What is force? What if I have to violate your rights to practice my rights? What about the disabled and extremely poor? etc. etc. etc.) The Objectivist view is so radical that you really need to read a comprehensive article just to get started. You did not mention whether you are able to order books from some source? Does you non-socialist government allow that?

[i remembered another source for some information on Ayn Rand. Check out this link. If you click on "Watch the Program" near Ayn Rand's picture, you will see an index of some more material.]

Edited June 15, 2006 by softwareNerd

[hunterrose]

Are you advocating forced socialism and/or voluntary socialism, marxist?

[IAmMetaphysical]

Hunter, socialism on a national scale necessarily has to be forced upon some individual. It is very unlikely that every single citizen would be in favor of it. Anything larger than a commune has to involve some sort of force.

[miseleigh]

Not if they are allowed to leave when they don't like the system... in that case, it remains voluntary to stay.

[IAmMetaphysical]

I guess in a way, but if you own property in a territory and that territory becomes socialist, and you then have to leave your property, it has been stolen from you.

[Inspector]

As you know, in capitalism, there are economic crisis, so we need the planned economy under worker’s democracy to solve it.

I don't know that. I know that the schools and Marx teach that, but I also know that Marx was wrong. In fact, the economic crises of the 19th and 20th centuries were caused by the intervention of the state, and not the operation of the free market. The people who taught you the opposite were lying to you.

Also, there is a very important difference between economic power and political power. Businessmen have economic power: the power to offer someone money. They cannot force anyone to do anything. The government has political power: the power to point guns at you. This most certainly can force people to do things.

In capitalism, the use of political power is outlawed; it is used only to defend against those who try to initiate force. Anyone who does not start the use of force is free to do as they wish.

In socialism, force is used all the time against those who did not, themselves, use force. This makes socialism morally wrong. If you confiscate the property of an innocent man, this is immoral, regardless of what you later do with that property.

Edited June 15, 2006 by Inspector

[Clawg]

Are you advocating forced socialism and/or voluntary socialism, marxist?

Voluntary Socialism can be practiced in any capitalist society, too. A group of people can decide to live in a commune working voluntarily for each other.

Therefore, any socialist (who doesn't advocate capitalism) wants forced Socialism.

That's the beauty of freedom and the superiority of capitalism. A socialist state cannot allow a group of people to freely produce and trade as their productivity (or happiness) would soon surpass the socialist industry and less and less money would land in the governments pockets.

[marxist]

i am living in China. the school tell us what is marism or socialism as you are told what is capitalism in your school. But you are lucky because that what you are told coincide with your society while what we are told is contradiction of our society. now our form of economy is more like yours not the theoretic socialism. i now have to work in a private company as it is difficulty for me to find a decent job. i am not happy to work here but i have to do so, otherwise i have to unemployed. what force me to do what i don't want to do? i htink it is the loaves and fishes, we are all in capitalism. According to the theory, the socialsm is ideal society. i think the real socialism never existed in the world before and now and it will come into being in the future.

[softwareNerd]

According to the theory, the socialsm is ideal society.

That is a false theory. Socialism in practice is most often bad, but has resulted in "livable" systems in many countries. The reason some countries are more successful with socialism is that they introduce some elements of free-economy. In other words, they allow people some limited rights, including some limited property rights. The closer that countries stay to the theory of socialism, the worse things get. The theory of socialism is completely wrong and completely evil.

[Bold Standard]

Also, there is a very important difference between economic power and political power.

Yes, thanks for mentioning that, Inspector.

i am living in China. the school tell us what is marism or socialism as you are told what is capitalism in your school. But you are lucky because that what you are told coincide with your society while what we are told is contradiction of our society. now our form of economy is more like yours not the theoretic socialism. i now have to work in a private company as it is difficulty for me to find a decent job. i am not happy to work here but i have to do so, otherwise i have to unemployed. what force me to do what i don't want to do? i htink it is the loaves and fishes, we are all in capitalism. According to the theory, the socialsm is ideal society. i think the real socialism never existed in the world before and now and it will come into being in the future.

We are not usually taught about capitalism in schools here in America, and when it is mentioned, it is usually handled inaccurately. The very existence of a public school system is one of many examples of socialistic institutions in the American system. America is not capitalist. It is a mixed economy. Isabel Paterson? Rose Wilder Lane? (You mentioned them in another post) I never heard of them until after high school (and I know of many who have been all the way through college and have never heard of them). I was lucky to have a Literature teacher in my last year of high school who (briefly) mentioned Ayn Rand, and the rest of the research I did all on my own time.

I'm a little astonished, because you live in a country which is, for the first time, just starting to experience some prosperity. Isn't it obvious that this is because capitalistic principles are being allowed? In certain areas, and with reservations, but still somewhat allowed-- and to that extent, you are starting to see some prosperity. When the regime was more consistently socialistic, it couldn't feed its people. Some of your productive people lived the way poor people lived in more capitalistic societies around you and all over the world.

Aren't the success of Taiwan and Hong Kong proof that manual labor and material resources alone are not enough to provide for the masses? It takes freedom-- freedom to think alone; freedom to act selfishly; freedom to love your work because it's yours, and nobody else can touch it or change it against your will. That's what feeds countries.

Freedom means freedom from force. Freedom from someone else threatening your life, with the law on their side. There is no such thing as freedom from starvation, freedom from having to make decisions, freedom from being responsible for yourself, etc. In other words, freedom is freedom from people (who can choose to use force against you or not), not freedom from nature (which is what it is regardless of your hopes, wishes, or fears).

Edited June 20, 2006 by Bold Standard

[Inspector]

i am not happy to work here but i have to do so, otherwise i have to unemployed. what force me to do what i don't want to do?

Freedom means freedom from force. Freedom from someone else threatening your life, with the law on their side. There is no such thing as freedom from starvation, freedom from having to make decisions, freedom from being responsible for yourself, etc. In other words, freedom is freedom from people (who can choose to use force against you or not), not freedom from nature (which is what it is regardless of your hopes, wishes, or fears).

Expanding on Bold Standard's point:

Marxist, you need to realize that there are very, very different meanings of the word "force."

You use it in one way: Say, you don't have any blueberries so you are forced, by your circumstances, to eat strawberries. Or, because you need food to live, you must work in order to buy food. This is simply the law of nature. This is a scientific fact: food must be produced and if you want people to produce it for you then you need to do something for them in return.

There is a different use of the word, meaning "the use of physical violence." As in, "the men from the government came to my house and said that it has been nationalized. They pointed guns at me and forced me out of my house." This isn't a law of nature that made you leave your house, it was the actions of men.

In the first example, nobody has committed violence against anyone else. That is just nature; the way things are. In the second example, there has clearly been an act of violence. Capitalism is the abolishment of the initiation of violence from a society.

Socialism is immoral because it uses the initiation of violence against innocent people. It steals property at gunpoint. That is true of both the country you live in, and the theory envisioned by Marx. That is why all socialism is evil; both the socialism in theory and the socialism that is practiced.

Edited June 20, 2006 by Inspector

[Groovenstein]

Not if they are allowed to leave when they don't like the system... in that case, it remains voluntary to stay.

I disagree, Megan. Let's take the income tax as an example. If you stay in MA instead of moving to NH, are you voluntarily paying income taxes in MA? If you do move to NH, are you then voluntarily paying higher property taxes?

I think the best example I can think of is rape. Is it stupid to wear tiny clothes and hop into a car with several strange drunk men? Of course. Does such extreme stupidity mean you consented when they got on you? Of course not. Taxes and other property confiscation works the same way. Would it be dumb to stay in a country with 80% taxation when there was a neighboring country identical in all respects except that it has 20% taxation? Probably. Does that make the 80% voluntary? No.

[fatdogs12]

i am living in China. the school tell us what is marism or socialism as you are told what is capitalism in your school. But you are lucky because that what you are told coincide with your society while what we are told is contradiction of our society. now our form of economy is more like yours not the theoretic socialism. i now have to work in a private company as it is difficulty for me to find a decent job. i am not happy to work here but i have to do so, otherwise i have to unemployed. what force me to do what i don't want to do? i htink it is the loaves and fishes, we are all in capitalism. According to the theory, the socialsm is ideal society. i think the real socialism never existed in the world before and now and it will come into being in the future.

In a capitalistic society a person is not forced to work. People choose to work rather than not have any money or anything. That is just the choice between life or death though, that is reality that is forcing you to choose not any social system.

[hunterrose]

Hunter, socialism on a national scale necessarily has to be forced upon some individual. It is very unlikely that every single citizen would be in favor of it. Anything larger than a commune has to involve some sort of force.

Socialism on a national scale could be government/force instituted. Or it could be a huge voluntary cooperative that people chose to participate in or not. Unlikely perhaps, but not necessarily forced.

[miseleigh]

If you stay in MA instead of moving to NH, are you voluntarily paying income taxes in MA? If you do move to NH, are you then voluntarily paying higher property taxes?

I think the best example I can think of is rape. Is it stupid to wear tiny clothes and hop into a car with several strange drunk men? Of course. Does such extreme stupidity mean you consented when they got on you? [...] Would it be dumb to stay in a country with 80% taxation when there was a neighboring country identical in all respects except that it has 20% taxation?

If you move to NH rather than MA, that was a voluntary choice. You might not be entirely happy about paying property taxes, but it's part of the deal of living in NH. If you don't want property taxes, you can move to place that doesn't have them. So yes, it's voluntary.

Will the drunk men let you get out of the car if you so choose at any point? If so, and you don't take that chance, you've let them rape you. If you're allowed to leave the place where you are, and you don't, staying is a voluntary choice, and the laws of that area are part of that choice. It might always be the lesser of two evils, but it's still a choice.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Socialism on a national scale could be government/force instituted. Or it could be a huge voluntary cooperative that people chose to participate in or not. Unlikely perhaps, but not necessarily forced.

Point taken, maybe not "necessarily" but very unlikely, extremely unlikely, so unlikely its not worth talking about "voluntary national socialism."

Toward th other points:

If you live somewhere and you own property, that property is yours. Choosing not to move to a place where there aren't looters does not imply consent with the looters. They are still INITIATING force against you. IF a theif puts a gun to your head and says "give me your money" when you hand the money over you are not doing so voluntarily.

[Bold Standard]

Marxist, you need to realize that there are very, very different meanings of the word "force."

Good point. This can be confusing, linguistically, even for native English speakers sometimes.

Will the drunk men let you get out of the car if you so choose at any point? If so, and you don't take that chance, you've let them rape you. If you're allowed to leave the place where you are, and you don't, staying is a voluntary choice, and the laws of that area are part of that choice. It might always be the lesser of two evils, but it's still a choice.

What if they didn't let you out of the car (the car being an analogy to socialism), but merely let you choose which one of them you'd rather have rape you? Does that mean you were not raped by any of them, because each one offered to be one of the men who didn't rape you?

To go back to the more concrete example, does the fact that you can chose whether some certain property of yours is stolen in one state, vs. different property being stolen in another state, mean that the property has not been stolen?

Edited June 20, 2006 by Bold Standard

[marxist]

yes, I have to work for food naturally. But is it necessary for me to work in a bad place when I have more ability to have a decent job. Why I can’t find such job? It is because that there is no need for this job in human resource or labour market or any other social factors such as the lack of money(when you need to go to other place to find the job by bus and the like) and the social discrimination and so on. The free market economic system is consist of the market. Does market have unsocial nature. In socialism society(it is established on the basis of the highly developed production capability) and the planned economy will place you in the right station according to your ability (af course the ability is developed according to the society’s need and your interest in a planned way)now ,my major is foreign trade, but there is little job related to it or there are more people whose major is also foreign trade.then I have to not work in the foreign trade field in capitalism society. And in capitalism society, no private company would like to spend their money to training you and you have no support from the socity and you have no enough money and you can’t get money from other path such as loan, so you have no power to select another major needed by the market.other man doesn’t mean the society.

The society is the relationship between the people. I think the tangible way such as using Gun to force you to do is not the only social element that will force you to do what you don’t want to do.there are variety of the untangible force in our society that would effect us. maybe you would say that its nature is the same as the nature(food and the like) but the society is built by all of us, then what we can do to improve it or to remove the unreasonable "reality" which is built by some of us.

Edited June 21, 2006 by marxist