Robert Taylor and idleidolidyll's political debating thread

[steveb64]

THe USSR was corrupted by authoriatrianism and as such it could not be defined as actually socialist. It was a dictatorship and the definition from that abusive dictatorship is merely propaganda. That you rely on propaganda rather than text book definitions or truly authoritative sources like Marx or Adam Smith speaks volumes.

snip'd

That would be true - the Stalinist era was a particularly nasty time for the Russian people - but they had been doing even worse under the Tsarist regime. From what I saw when living there (mid '90s for near 2 years), and have picked up on the subject over the years, communism was the easiest (apart from the Stalinist regime) and least painful way for the russian peasant class to get a general improvement in their standard of living.

That said - communisms failure, was in not providing enough incentive (cash, land ownership, etc.) to inspire individuals to perform at their best - why bother, when the slacker down the road gets a share of what you've done, for no work output.
Thus, they (and the Chinese also) are now moving towards a capitalistic society (quite quickly in some of the bigger cities) - hopefully without dropping too many of the social backups, like welfare for the elderly and infirm....

IMO - the best solution seems to be a combination of capitalism AND socialism - taxes being used for building common infrastructure (hospitals, schools, transport, power, and comms networks) and law enforcement, and acting as a backup/catch point for those who are unable to support themselves, for whatever reason - while still giving the individual the chance/opportunity/incentive to improve their lot and advance themselves. Whether Russia and China will achieve that or not - who knows? Good luck to them I say!

Of course, then there's Cuba - which (IIRC) was described somewhere as being one of the few communist societies that could have worked as well as the communist ideal was stated. Problem was the Americans screwed that one up for them with various dirty tricks and trade embargos...

[slowpoke]

I envy you steveb64, Russia is an intriquing country with a rich history and to live there for a couple of years would be quite an experience. I could happily spend days just checking out the incredibly ornate Moscow Metro underground railway stations, which make our graffiti ridden examples look quite barbaric....anyway.....
You'll probably be in the right position to correct my impressions. It seems that with the fall of communism and rise of capitalism in what is quite a richly resourced country that the general living standard has hardly changed for the average person on the street. Even some 16years later life actually seems worse in some cases. The drug trade, general crime, prostitution etc are all flourishing, the Roman Abramavich's (owner of Chelsea football club) gorge themselves on the "free market", yet life seems to still be a struggle for the average person. The only people who seem to be benefiting from the overthrow of communism seem to be the shady underworld types, and the Macdonald's and Nike type conglomerates who have access to another market.

[steveb64]

I envy you steveb64, Russia is an intriquing country with a rich history and to live there for a couple of years would be quite an experience. I could happily spend days just checking out the incredibly ornate Moscow Metro underground railway stations, which make our graffiti ridden examples look quite barbaric....anyway.....
You'll probably be in the right position to correct my impressions. It seems that with the fall of communism and rise of capitalism in what is quite a richly resourced country that the general living standard has hardly changed for the average person on the street. Even some 16years later life actually seems worse in some cases. The drug trade, general crime, prostitution etc are all flourishing, the Roman Abramavich's (owner of Chelsea football club) gorge themselves on the "free market", yet life seems to still be a struggle for the average person. The only people who seem to be benefiting from the overthrow of communism seem to be the shady underworld types, and the Macdonald's and Nike type conglomerates who have access to another market.

The metro stations are awesome. Over a million passengers a day through some of them - and the longest fastest escalators you'll EVER see!

Like the vertical height equivalent of a 10 story building, in one continuous escalator, moving at a metre a second! That's a fast walk on to it - and you get quite a launch off the end!

It has changed - but there's this thing called social inertia - where it takes a lot of input for things to start changing, and if you want them to change faster - even MORE input... There's a LOT of money going into Russia - and it is filtering down through the system to the (still developing) middle class, and then drips down from there to the lower classes.

Even when we were there - mid '94 to earlyish '96 - there was a class of newly rich - (Novy Russkies - new Russians) who has shitloads of dosh. And it was like the wild west - gunfights, forced takeovers, all sorts of weird shit. You couldn't just walk along the street at night having a chat... it was like painting a target on your back. Same as wearing bright western ski jackets or clothing, bum bags (a particular favourite for the muggers), - dress drab - I like black, so had an unexpected benefit - tied in with a black US Mil spec 'extreme cold weather' parka... There's only two outfits in Russia that wear black - the Mafia, and the Spetznatz (KGB Special Police) - and NOBODY messes with them. Put that together with me being fairly large (6', 180 lb), grumpy looking (stuffed back, so if it hurt...) and apparently looked like a Caucasian (that's as in from the Caucaus mountain regions) - NOBODY hasseled me. It was great - we could walk down a footpath, at one of the busiest times of the day on a Saturday morning, and the crowds would part around us. Absolutely NO jostling...

On the other hand, some friends of my missus came up for a visit (Aussie and a Kiwi) - and got mugged in the middle of one of the main streets in Moscow, one Saturday morning... And they were due to fly out on the Monday! Lost cash, wallets, passports, visas, travellers cheques - all that was in the inside pockets of their (purple) jackets... Luckily, we knew the people at the NZ Embassy quite well (had been to a couple of parties there, and got on well with the security guy and his wife) - and they were brilliant! Got the Kiwi's passport replacement sorted, told us what we needed to do to get a visa replacement organised (get stamped form from Russian police), and helped us double check everything the Aussie embassy was doing - the Kiwis got it right every time! ...and they made their flight!

There were summat like 2 or 3 McDonalds in Moscow when we were there - spoke to a friend recently who'd been back over there not too long back - he reckoned 30+ McD's there now...

[davereid]

[COLOR=DarkOrange]
The New Zealand Oxford Paperback Dictionary ISBN 0 19 5584104:Capitalism: An economic system in which trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.Capitalist: 1. n One who has much capital invested; derog; a rich person.
2. a person who favours capitalism Socialism: n A political and economic theory advocating that the community as a whole should own and control the means of production, transport, property etc.

Not that I actually see much wrong with "An economic system in which trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit."

As thats actually the only reason we do anything. For pay, profit, reward.
Be it cash, or the reward of helping others, its our primary motivation in life.

Yes the battle of the dictionary...

How about "SOCIALISIM (In Marxist theory) a transitional stage in the development of a society from capitalisim to communisim..." (New Collins english dictionary.)

[davereid]

please, spare the dramatics it (Socialisim) doesn't take tax by gunpoint and the agendas and supporters are the majority not the minority: that's the point

Absolutely tax IS taken by force. Just try resist paying it. Resist the man in the grey suit, he will send one in a blue suit carrying a stick. Resist him, and he will send 10 men in black suits, carrying guns.

[davereid]

the acid test: change the anthem so it calls on a different religious myth to save our country and see if the christians whine

lets see an anthem calling for Vishna to save our country on our behalf and watch the christians whine about it.

While we are doing that acid test, lets do another. Make tax voluntary, and see how many vote for it.

(Oops.. can't do that ... if you only pay for services you want you would be a free man..)

[davereid]

No it doesn't; it gives power to the people collectively and then they as a group decide. In our system that is called democracy...long live Robin Hood....

Yes, Democracy has been likened to two wolves and a lamb voting on the dinner menu.

IMHO democracy (or ANY system) can't be allowed to cross certain lines.
And they are the use of force for other than self defence.

So a society that has an army or police force to protect itself from other nations, or the criminal within its own population does not cross that line.

But a system or individuals that think they have the right to extract money or work from others crosses that line. It has not made anyone better off, except in its own eyes.

What it has done is made slaves.

"SLAVE - a person who is forced to work for another against his will.. a person under the domination of anther person"

[idleidolidyll]

That would be true - the Stalinist era was a particularly nasty time for the Russian people - but they had been doing even worse under the Tsarist regime. From what I saw when living there (mid '90s for near 2 years), and have picked up on the subject over the years, communism was the easiest (apart from the Stalinist regime) and least painful way for the russian peasant class to get a general improvement in their standard of living.

That said - communisms failure, was in not providing enough incentive (cash, land ownership, etc.) to inspire individuals to perform at their best - why bother, when the slacker down the road gets a share of what you've done, for no work output.
Thus, they (and the Chinese also) are now moving towards a capitalistic society (quite quickly in some of the bigger cities) - hopefully without dropping too many of the social backups, like welfare for the elderly and infirm....

IMO - the best solution seems to be a combination of capitalism AND socialism - taxes being used for building common infrastructure (hospitals, schools, transport, power, and comms networks) and law enforcement, and acting as a backup/catch point for those who are unable to support themselves, for whatever reason - while still giving the individual the chance/opportunity/incentive to improve their lot and advance themselves. Whether Russia and China will achieve that or not - who knows? Good luck to them I say!

Of course, then there's Cuba - which (IIRC) was described somewhere as being one of the few communist societies that could have worked as well as the communist ideal was stated. Problem was the Americans screwed that one up for them with various dirty tricks and trade embargos...

excellent post steve

the incentive thing happened the same in china.

when Mao wanted more production the managers all reported more but didn't manage to increase productivity.
the crops failed, the government calculations of their grain stocks were out by a large order of magnitude and tens of millions starved to death.

that was a lesson and by then, Mao was a virtual dictator; he'd stayed too long and become corrupt with power. the same happened with mugabe and others; at first they were popular and often the right medicine at the time but power eventually corrupted them.

as dictators they never allowed their people to have choices (and therefore are not socialists by definition)

you've nicely identified the main difference between socialism and communism.

communism failed because of the dictatorship and the communal work schemes not because it had some socialist underpinnings.

socialism doesn't demand communal work groups (although some socialists might suggest them).
all it demands is that control over peoples lives should be in the hands of the people as a whole rather than those wealthy few who inevitably cause mayhem when the power corrupts them.

and once more for the chorus: it's authoritarianism that remains the worst problem: put too much power in too few hands and self gratification will take over at the cost of lives and freedom.

[idleidolidyll]

It reminds me why capitalism amerikan style is an abusive failure:http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html

spot the trend?

cosy up with dictators and despots to overthrow and undermine democracy.

economies and resources are easier to steal that way

[davereid]

Yeah I know.. when Mr. Bush bombs an Iraqi thats evidence of how bad capitalisim is. But when the National Socialists fry 6000000 jews, they actually werent socialists, they were the reverse of socialists.

The USA contains a lot of capitalists.. but its been a long time since it was truely capitalist. It may have been in the time of Jefferson and Franklin.

But now, most states have social welfare schemes. The entire nation has a pension scheme. Free primary and secondary education. Hmm... maybe the modern USA is pretty socialist too !

Socialists can do what they want 'cos they have the majority, and thats democracy.

But Grahameboye can only be a christian as long as he doesnt bother other people, cos hes got a majority, but it doesnt count cos gods a myth.

[slowpoke]

Yeah I know.. when Mr. Bush bombs an Iraqi thats evidence of how bad capitalisim is. But when the National Socialists fry 6000000 jews, they actually werent socialists, they were the reverse of socialists.

I think the oft stated point is that both acts are to be condemned, with the common link being that both acts were driven by authoritarian governments and neither government sought the mandate of the people regarding their proposed actions.

The USA contains a lot of capitalists.. but its been a long time since it was truely capitalist. It may have been in the time of Jefferson and Franklin.

But now, most states have social welfare schemes. The entire nation has a pension scheme. Free primary and secondary education. Hmm... maybe the modern USA is pretty socialist too !

As long as such basic necessities as health care and power are allowed to be manipulated by private companies who's sole motivation is profit, without thought to the service they provide, then it's fair to say that the US is a looooong way from being a socialist state.

I would propose that social welfare and education actually pay for themselves. To withhold these services would result in crime/social disorder on a massive scale and a poorly skilled workforce, both of which will ultimately cost a greater amount of money.


Socialists can do what they want 'cos they have the majority, and thats democracy.

But Grahameboye can only be a christian as long as he doesnt bother other people, cos hes got a majority, but it doesnt count cos gods a myth.

It's not a valid argument to compare a generalisation to a specific example. 3i's has already stated that he is quite prepared to go along with the majority view if he happens to be in the minority. I think 3i's sticking point with the anthem is a valid one: even if you are a christian why would you prefer an anthem that excludes a large portion of your country's population when there is a clear alternative that could include everyone. Shouldn't the aim be to satisfy as many people as possible?

................

[idleidolidyll]

Oh dear, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Despite leading some people by the nose through the minefield of propaganda within political terminology; many still refuse to recognise authoritative definitions of thew terminology they attempt to discuss.
Instead of basing their arguments on those authoritative definitions they base them on propaganda even when that propaganda is debunked as in the difference between socialism and communism, between capitalism and commercialism etc.
Worse still, these same people are predisposed to believe what people tell us they are rather than identify them in a political context by the actions they take and the policies they make.
There is no point arguing with people who continue to point to the dictatorship of Joe Stalin and attack it as if it were socialism even though it has been categorically shown that communism and socialism have different names because they are different ideologies, even though a dictator by definition cannot BE socialist.
Add to that their single minded determination to falsely accuse socialism of great evil without once casting an eye over the CURRENT abuse by the worlds largest capitalist nation or its plethora of abuses in the past.

For the record: Adolf Hitler may have SAID he was a socialist but that is no more true than me saying I'm King of New Zealand. Judging Hitler by his actions, policies and allegiences (Catholic Church and Big Business), Hitler was a fascist dictator and his policies were to the right of centre.

I DO understand the motivation for presenting propaganda instead of fact based argument though: without propaganda capitalism and authoritarianism is stripped of its false promises and exposed as the dangerous ideologies that have existed since monarchs OWNED us all and used us or discarded us at a whim.

The fact remains:
Socialism is government by the people while capitalism is government by a dictator, oligarchy or invisible cabal who have been given more rights than the citizens of the nation (as in the USA).

[Grahameeboy]

Well folks, have a good day out there and enjoy the good things in life......

[idleidolidyll]

Now lets address Mr Reid's complaint that setting minimum wages is destructive in some way.

Unfortunately NZ has decided that it can be a free trade nation in a world where such nations are practically non existent.
That brings great danger for the people of the nation and great benefit for the few capitalists willing to exploit it.

The danger is that free trade effectively puts every job in NZ into competition with every labourer in the world regardless of whether their country has free trade or not.
This creates a race to the bottom where manufacturing relies more and more on driving down wages to retain competitiveness with the likes of China, Thailand etc where wages are less than a dollar an hour. Neither of those nations have free trade the way NZ does and we are effectively exporting our businesses and our jobs.
If we are to have a free trade policy, then wage protection is absolutely necessary. Without it we create a permanent poor class who are never likely to climb out of the hole capitalists have dug for them. That wage protection must be of sufficient strength to provide the worker with a decent standard of living or else they are no more than slaves.

I don't favour either idea though. I suggest that we are misguided and unrealistic in thinking we can have a free trade nation when even the worlds most powerful capitalist nation recognises that this is destructive of its internal industry. Instead I would prefer much greater support given to locally owned and run businesses in order to help them compete. Things like start up loans at low rates, free management and operational training for owners and staff, investment by government in research and technology in the private sector with the Govt retaining shares in its portfolio on behalf of the people of NZ and a policy of treating other nations as they treat us in trade.

laissez-faire capitalism, the kind promoted by Mr Reids words and by capitalists in many countries, is the most abusive form of the theory. It removes barriers to abuse by mega powerful corporations who refuse to be bound by the decent rules of society and instead seek to isolate all markets and create a new serfdom for workers who must fight not just against cheap Asian labour for their jobs, but also against exporters who make more money selling NZ produce to Europe and the USA than they can make selling to Kiwis (because our wages are driven down by competing with Asia etc).
laissez-faire capitalism is nothing less than a huge step back into our past when Monarchs and their selected elite decided everything without redress to the will of the people. It's promise is that everyone has the same chance to be wealthy but that is a lie. We can see by example all over the world that it increases the gap between the rich and poor and concentrates wealth in the minority of people who use it to ensure that is a permanent state of affairs.
Amerika's much lauded trickle down economic theory never produced trickle down: it produced trickle up with a few crumbs being throw to the dogs at their feet (You and me).

[davereid]

The fact remains:
Socialism is government by the people while capitalism is government by a dictator, oligarchy or invisible cabal who have been given more rights than the citizens of the nation (as in the USA).

No, socialisim is carefully rebadged slavery.

It's a system that absolutely relies on resources extracted from unwilling suppliers by force.

Strange how the socialists like to ignore this nasty little part of their chosen system, and then take the moral high ground.

As I have said before, capitalisim is quite capable of creating slaves. But it can exist without doing so. Socialisim on the other hand IS slavery.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.