Communism? Really? How quaint.

[cali]

And it won't, thankfully, be implemented here. Sure, unfettered capitalism is an unmitigated disaster and leads to fascism and deep corruption, but communism has also demonstrated itself to be an unmitigated disaster. It's led to totalitarianism and corruption. Why on earth would we want to replace one busted system with another?

The answer isn't either/or. It's a judiciously applied mixed economy with protections for individuals as well as universal rights.

And for anyone who brings up Cuba as a great success, I'd suggest that whatever you think of Castro, it's impossible to deny that he's a dictator.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. ?

[billyoc]

2. "There is a million miles of reform to go before we hit socialism"

-- Keith Olbermann

[Whoa_Nelly]

3. Are you referring to

this thread? :shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5292365

[cali]

4. Not specifically.

There are a fair number of people here who seem to think that communism is a viable system. That just seems so... dated and naive to me.

[lxlxlxl]

11. Communism is useful still as THE ONLY critical approach to economics...not the end.

Dismissing Communism outright is not going to get us anywhere. If you wanted to understand how the financial crisis happened and what its relevance is to 99.9 percent of people on the planet you have to realize that communism provides the only rational and comprehensive approach. How those critiques are then implemented and the lessons we learn from failed regimes determine communisms ability to adapt but also realize its own failures.

Capitalism does not acknowledge its own failures on its own.

[originalpckelly]

13. "Capitalism does not acknowledge its own failures on its own."

I seem to remember that in this thing called reality, they tried communism, and it devolved into tyranny and no one could speak up about the shit that was wrong until the last moment in the '80s, and when the truth finally came out, there was so much pent up demand for change, the shit came crumbling down. That and nationalist sentiments in the various Republics.

Communism works for a small group of people who know and care about each other, because they have an emotional investment and this sets up a self-regulating system that punishes them if they act in a non-egalitarian way toward their family/friends. The problem even here, is that people will sometimes screw over their loved ones for greed as well, so even in a family, it's not perfect.

Not to say unfettered corporate capitalism is great and all that, there are people who are homeless and so indebted they're killing themselves to escape it.

But communism, in practice isn't as great as it sounds.

[originalpckelly]

12. They are as bad as those who are religious fundamentalists.

Communism is like a religion anymore, it's a theory that doesn't match up with reality, the current day adherents to it are incapable of admitting what happened in the USSR.

What's interesting, is that I've been working on ways to prove that corporate capitalism is very much a planned system, and in many ways demonstrates some of the same problems as the USSR.

[rucky]

5. The two fallacies I see over and over again:

1) Conflating enconomic systems with political systems. Communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. There are social democracies, and capitalist monarchies.

2) Throwing out the theory because it hasn't worked in practice. That goes for both capitalism and communism, around here. They cite an example of a failure of that system, and feel like they have to go either/or on the issue.

I say we need to think outside the box when it comes to economic systems, and I like where you're going with this post.

[originalpckelly]

10. Are you serious?

1. In life there are branches of power, as there are in a good government. They are the economy, the government, popular culture and if it's not part of popular culture, religion. If you look at most dictators/autocrats, they accomplish their power grabs through submitting the other branches of power to the one they are at the top of.

The Ayatollah's in Iran control everything, it's a rather socialist country, with lots of government intervention in the economy, and the government is subservient to the religion of Iran. Popular culture is also subservient to the religious branch.

Kim Jong Il in North Korea controls everything. The country has a command economy that is fully combined with the government power structure, it is an atheist country being communist, but even Il plays to odd natural phenomenon with a mysterious nebulous to give himself the air of religion and spirituality. Popular culture serves the leader's propaganda, because his agents control the economy and resources aren't wasted on non-propaganda art orart for Il's own pleasure.

There is an interplay between the various power structures in a nation. Money can influence elections, elections can influence the economy by adjusting tax policy and spending, popular culture can be influenced by politics (Obama is a great example of this) and economics (Warren Buffett, folk hero investor demonstrates this.) Religion, if it is not a part of popular culture can be influenced by the economy (hard times lower donations, increase demands for charity) it can cause people to act in egalitarian ways, or act with hatred interfering with legal rights (gay marriage.) This interplay acts like the checks and balances of a government.

Due to my analysis of many dictatorships with this theory, I have come to the conclusion that philosophies that do separate power between the economy, government, popular culture, and religion will eventually degenerate into tyranny, as a government without checks and balances is observed to do.

One cannot have the power to plan an economy, without government control, without control over popular culture, and even though I don't it has much use, religion.

2. That's how science works, and science (the pursuit of truth) has shown itself to be the greatest freer of humanity. Giving up old theories when experimental evidence has shown them invalid is the way science works. We ought to treat all matters of life as a science, if they can be. It's the way that people learn, and if we learn from history, we can at least hope to prevent the same suffering in the future.

3. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try variation and experimentation, in fact I think that's something we've had too little of in this nation, and it's happened because the people who control America do not want us to experiment with the system, as it's working quite well for them. It's not working for the rest of us, however, ask the people who commit suicide because they are so indebted or the people living in tent cities, they'll tell you this system isn't working for them. I think it can be reduced down to some very fundamental flaws.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

6. Is that your thesis?

You’re beautiful more beautiful than me
You’re honorable more honorable than me
Loyal to the Bank of America

<snip>

Vested interest united ties, landed gentry rationalize
Look who bought the myth, by jingo, buy America

<snip>

Enemy sighted, enemy met, I’m addressing the realpolitik
Look who bought the myth, by jingo, buy America

<snip>

Exhuming McCarthy
(Meet me at the book burning)
Exhuming McCarthy
(Meet me at the book burning)

- "Exhuming McCarthy" by R.E.M.

[marylanddem]

8. Great graphics. n/t

[No.23]

14. Wow! Great graphic indeed.

And a most essential message to boot.

The limitations of our thinking are often conditioned ones.

Provided by people who want us to think within their boxes.

Thanks for the powerful visual.

[Captain Hilts]

7. Cuba's economy started out great under Castro, but it collapsed when the subsidies from the SovUn

stopped.

Yes, I believe there is a 'third way' and that Europe is pretty good at it. No massive migration from Europe tohere.

[originalpckelly]

9. You're either right about the mix, or it has to be a free market.

But a free market devoid of high latency planning., in other words a system where supply and demand self-regulate more frequently rather than in a big ass economy with large corporations.

We know that communism devolves into an oligarchy when implemented on anything but a small commune, because people have fewer problems screwing someone over if they don't know them and don't have an emotional involvement in them. The pack relationship of humans beings is usually cited as the source of communal cohesion, but that only applies when there is love or people know each other. The economy of a large enough population involves transactions between unfamiliar people, and in those transactions one can see how one would tend to be greedier.

There has never truly been a free market system in America's history, most of it has been a corporate system, and corporatism involves lots of planning, and an oligarchy usually evolves in a planned system, because someone has to decide where things go, and those people then gain power from the ability to ration.

This is how our system really works, and only between corporations is there a free market, but one that suffers from the inefficiencies of the planning and the fact that there is wealth re-distribution to the top.

[No.23]

15. De-bastardizing capitalism.

While I am not a supporter of either capitalism or socialism (being a mutt, I prefer mutt or hybrid versions of things in general), I would like to suggest that what we are have today is a bastardized form of capitalism.

And that any critique of capitalism has to include the consideration that, capitalism today and in our country, is a bastardized manifestation of capitalism.

Bastardized by centralized banking (the Federal Reserve) and its related fiat monetary system.

If this is so, then perhaps the de-bastardization of our capitalist system might be an appropriate short-term solution that might also include long-term benefits.

The return to a sound monetary system and dismantling of the Federal Reserve were not sexy campaign issues during the Presidential campaign.

Hopefully, they've become a lot more sexy now.