Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
Is Communism good?
This poll is closed.
Yes 375 66.25%
No 191 33.75%
Total: 523 votes
[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

 
  • Locked thread
gobbagool
Feb 5, 2016

by R. Guyovich
Doctor Rope

Hogge Wild posted:

Why are the working conditions so awful in communist China's factories?

No, you see, because workers revel in the glory of working when it's not for "profit"

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Bob le Moche
Jul 10, 2011

I AM A HORRIBLE TANKIE MORON
WHO LONGS TO SUCK CHAVISTA COCK !

I SUGGEST YOU IGNORE ANY POSTS MADE BY THIS PERSON ABOUT VENEZUELA, POLITICS, OR ANYTHING ACTUALLY !


(This title paid for by money stolen from PDVSA)
Foxconn is a multinational private corporation. China's economy is as capitalist as can be, but the ruling party calls itself the "communist party" for historical reasons. France is capitalist with a "socialist party" that implements austerity and privatization, America is an oligarchy but has a "democratic party".

SunAndSpring
Dec 4, 2013
Eh gently caress it, not worth doing this poo poo.

SunAndSpring fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Jan 24, 2017

shovelbum
Oct 21, 2010

Fun Shoe
The thing I question about labor practices under capitalism as it currently stands is this: capitalism will basically seek any tiny advantage by its very nature, and if exploited humans are the pinnacle of "cheap robotics" then that is the direction the market will take. But how much more expensive on a per-iPad basis really WOULD it be to implement fullest possible automation + a few workers at Western wages throughout the entire supply chain? Americans mine certain minerals and assemble certain widgets that are affordable to Americans, so are all those foreign workers just suffering to bump the margins a little on some amoral business?

gobbagool
Feb 5, 2016

by R. Guyovich
Doctor Rope

Bob le Moche posted:

Foxconn is a multinational private corporation. China's economy is as capitalist as can be, but the ruling party calls itself the "communist party" for historical reasons. France is capitalist with a "socialist party" that implements austerity and privatization, America is an oligarchy but has a "democratic party".

next you're going to tell me east germany was neither democratic nor a republic. what other mind blowing things did you learn in babby's first history class this semester?

Bob le Moche
Jul 10, 2011

I AM A HORRIBLE TANKIE MORON
WHO LONGS TO SUCK CHAVISTA COCK !

I SUGGEST YOU IGNORE ANY POSTS MADE BY THIS PERSON ABOUT VENEZUELA, POLITICS, OR ANYTHING ACTUALLY !


(This title paid for by money stolen from PDVSA)

shovelbum posted:

So are all those foreign workers just suffering to bump the margins a little on some amoral business?

Yes, but it's not that the business is "amoral". If these corporations tried to pay their employees a decent wage, they would probably be driven out of business by more ruthless competitors who can undercut them on the consumer market and attract more investment capital through higher profits.

Socialism doesn't necessarily mean no more cheap electronics. It would actually not be that hard to increase automation to the point where producing that stuff is cheap without relying on underpaid labour. It's just that under capitalism, there's no incentive to invest in this automation because hiring desperate wage-slaves is cheaper. (And once investing in automation becomes cheaper, then since the means of production are privately owned the wage workers will not see the benefits of the added productivity and just lose their jobs, cheapening labour even more.)
A socialist electronics industry would probably also produce better-quality stuff that doesn't break down or become obsolete within a year, and produces less waste, among other advantages.

Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Jan 24, 2017

White Rock
Jul 14, 2007
Creativity flows in the bored and the angry!
Marx ultimate point was that the downfall of capitalism was inevitable, since it contains paradoxes which it cannot resolve. All and any attempts to "reform" capitalism into a humane model have failed or is in the process of failing. At some point or another capitalism devolves into either feudalism or communism.

Flowers For Algeria
Dec 3, 2005

I humbly offer my services as forum inquisitor. There is absolutely no way I would abuse this power in any way.


gobbagool posted:

next you're going to tell me east germany was neither democratic nor a republic. what other mind blowing things did you learn in babby's first history class this semester?

It seems that your mockery ought to be addressed to Hogge Wild, comrade!

OtherworldlyInvader
Feb 10, 2005

The X-COM project did not deliver the universe's ultimate cup of coffee. You have failed to save the Earth.


White Rock posted:

Marx ultimate point was that the downfall of capitalism was inevitable, since it contains paradoxes which it cannot resolve. All and any attempts to "reform" capitalism into a humane model have failed or is in the process of failing. At some point or another capitalism devolves into either feudalism or communism.

What are your historical examples of capitalist countries devolving into feudalism and communism? If feudalism/communism is the natural equilibrium can you demonstrate several example states which have settled into feudalism/communism from a capitalist system? If again feudalism/communism is the natural equilibrium, what force overcame that equilibrium and made feudal European states liberalize their economies over the last half a millennium, and caused the former USSR states and PRC to embrace aspects of capitalism over the last half century?

Flowers For Algeria
Dec 3, 2005

I humbly offer my services as forum inquisitor. There is absolutely no way I would abuse this power in any way.


OtherworldlyInvader posted:

What are your historical examples of capitalist countries devolving into feudalism and communism? If feudalism/communism is the natural equilibrium can you demonstrate several example states which have settled into feudalism/communism from a capitalist system? If again feudalism/communism is the natural equilibrium, what force overcame that equilibrium and made feudal European states liberalize their economies over the last half a millennium, and caused the former USSR states and PRC to embrace aspects of capitalism over the last half century?

America is feudalizin' by the minute.

TomViolence
Feb 19, 2013

PLEASE ASK ABOUT MY 80,000 WORD WALLACE AND GROMIT SLASH FICTION. PLEASE.

OtherworldlyInvader posted:

What are your historical examples of capitalist countries devolving into feudalism and communism? If feudalism/communism is the natural equilibrium can you demonstrate several example states which have settled into feudalism/communism from a capitalist system? If again feudalism/communism is the natural equilibrium, what force overcame that equilibrium and made feudal European states liberalize their economies over the last half a millennium, and caused the former USSR states and PRC to embrace aspects of capitalism over the last half century?

Define feudalism. If feudalism is predatory landlordism by a moneyed elite with military support that lords over a class of proletarian subjects who sell their labour in order to pay rent to the people who own the houses they live in, I reckon there's quite a few capitalist nations regressing to feudalism right now.

gobbagool
Feb 5, 2016

by R. Guyovich
Doctor Rope

TomViolence posted:

Define feudalism. If feudalism is predatory landlordism by a moneyed elite with military support that lords over a class of proletarian subjects who sell their labour in order to pay rent to the people who own the houses they live in, I reckon there's quite a few capitalist nations regressing to feudalism right now.

sure, I mean if you define capitalism as "everything I dont like" and communism as "fantastic stuff, all of it" then it's real easy to back into whatever your stupid point of view is

TomViolence
Feb 19, 2013

PLEASE ASK ABOUT MY 80,000 WORD WALLACE AND GROMIT SLASH FICTION. PLEASE.

gobbagool posted:

sure, I mean if you define capitalism as "everything I dont like" and communism as "fantastic stuff, all of it" then it's real easy to back into whatever your stupid point of view is

Well, come up with a better definition of feudalism and interpret yourself how it does or doesn't apply to modern societies. You know, rather than empty calory shitposting.

Bob le Moche
Jul 10, 2011

I AM A HORRIBLE TANKIE MORON
WHO LONGS TO SUCK CHAVISTA COCK !

I SUGGEST YOU IGNORE ANY POSTS MADE BY THIS PERSON ABOUT VENEZUELA, POLITICS, OR ANYTHING ACTUALLY !


(This title paid for by money stolen from PDVSA)

OtherworldlyInvader posted:

What are your historical examples of capitalist countries devolving into feudalism and communism? If feudalism/communism is the natural equilibrium can you demonstrate several example states which have settled into feudalism/communism from a capitalist system?

Over the entire scope of human history, capitalism is a very short and recent development. For its entire small existence it's been defined by instability, crisis, and unprecedented accelerating changes in the fabric of human civilization. Capitalism has become a worldwide system, and has, since its inception, never actually undergone full collapse yet. However, it has come close to it in the past, and has been unable to hold back *localized* revolution at many points in its history. Whenever this has happened, capitalism has survived through different methods that allowed to temporarily push back crisis: genocidal war, colonialism, unsustainable extraction, etc.

OtherworldlyInvader posted:

If again feudalism/communism is the natural equilibrium, what force overcame that equilibrium and made feudal European states liberalize their economies over the last half a millennium, and caused the former USSR states and PRC to embrace aspects of capitalism over the last half century?

"The domino theory" was invented not by marxists but by the U.S. government after WW2, who gave itself the purpose of destroying socialism (they knew it wouldn't do it on its own). The idea was that if you let socialism take hold somewhere, and don't stop it, it will indeed spread and become the new "equilibrium". Local attempts to build socialism have always been defeated by an international alliance of all reactionary forces, ever since the Paris Commune (and even earlier). The ruling classes of all nations understand the threat that socialism poses to them, and will overcome any difference they might have with each other in their common goal of defeating it, at any cost. If you read up on the history of the CIA interventions, for example, you will find a history of repression of socialism movements all over the world, including funding the Taliban against afghan communists, the war on Vietnam, the Contra wars, overthrowing of Chilean democracy, the assassination of civil rights activists in the US, and so many other examples.

Because capitalism is an international system, when any one individual country attempts to challenge the absolute dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, it can be punished through various means such as capital flight and trade sanctions. These means are only available however because of the context of the world capitalist system, and put pressure on socialist countries to maintain a level of exploitation of labor comparable to the rest of the world if they hope to engage in trade, or to defend from invasion. Socialist governments are left with the choice of trying to build socialism in isolation (meaning achieving some level of self-sufficiency, and having a strong enough military to hold the siege), or capitulating to bourgeois interests. Syriza in Greece recently chose the latter, for example, as did many "socialist" parties in europe, whereas North Korea is the consequence of attempting the former. Cuba was able to hold out for a while, but is now letting capitalists take control again, which is what the communist party in China also opted for a long time ago. This is the problem of "socialism in one country", which is a big debate among communists. The dilemma is what has been playing out in Venezuela.

The only time when a level of compromise could be reached between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and where you could see capitalist economies allowing for the existence of some socialist welfare reforms, was during the existence of the soviet bloc, because the left was empowered by the fact that they would receive international socialist support in the event of capitalist blackmail. Ever since the USSR was defeated, welfare states have been dismantled, and neoliberalism rules.

Capitalism however, is, as always, digging its own grave through leveling the conditions all over the world (through international investment, immigration, the eroding of democratic sovereignty, international debt, etc).This means that the crises of capitalism happen in a more and more globalized, and less and less localized fashion, and that eventually, a worldwide crisis might open the way for world revolution.

Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Jan 24, 2017

OtherworldlyInvader
Feb 10, 2005

The X-COM project did not deliver the universe's ultimate cup of coffee. You have failed to save the Earth.


TomViolence posted:

Define feudalism. If feudalism is predatory landlordism by a moneyed elite with military support that lords over a class of proletarian subjects who sell their labour in order to pay rent to the people who own the houses they live in, I reckon there's quite a few capitalist nations regressing to feudalism right now.

I think I'd define it as something like a political system where central political authorities recursively grant out property/legal rights to those under them in the form of hereditarily passed titles, in exchange for on-going financial and military obligations to the higher authority.

White Rock
Jul 14, 2007
Creativity flows in the bored and the angry!

OtherworldlyInvader posted:

What are your historical examples of capitalist countries devolving into feudalism and communism? If feudalism/communism is the natural equilibrium can you demonstrate several example states which have settled into feudalism/communism from a capitalist system? If again feudalism/communism is the natural equilibrium, what force overcame that equilibrium and made feudal European states liberalize their economies over the last half a millennium, and caused the former USSR states and PRC to embrace aspects of capitalism over the last half century?

Historical examples is a bad way to argue for societal change, especially when we are talking about a future potential society. And your examples has nothing to do with the paradoxes of the capital.

If we were in the a couple of century's in the past , how could you argue for democracy using existing examples? All former democracies had fallen to dictatorships, and kings have been working out for years. And the french revolution, what a disaster. Your arguments must come from pointing out flaws in the internal system as is, or in the human nature that uses it.

Play
Apr 25, 2006

Strong stroll for a mangy stray
A syncretism of both systems is really the only way to get the positive results that I assume we all want. Capitalism is necessary for the kind of progress in production and living standards that we are accustomed to. But it is not a perfect system in and of itself, merely a tool to achieve certain things. Then, the best parts of communism are taken to complete the system. What's ironic is that a strong social safety net and strong regulations put in place in the right locations and manner actually STRENGTHEN the capitalist system.

Just like communism, capitalism in democracy is easily corrupted by those at the top, particularly finance but also wealth accumulation in general. A strong "proletarian" class is thus necessary to balance it out.

There's a reason capitalism is essentially the "default" system of economics. It is natural to humans and naturally aligns with our sense of ownership, fairness, etc. Communism was a beautiful experiment that ended in totalitarianism in every case; I would submit that social democracy is the logical conclusion of both systems and most likely the only system that actually works and, when employed correctly, results in decent returns for people at every level.

In short, this question is loving stupid, as I'm sure the person who proposed it knows.

Bob le Moche
Jul 10, 2011

I AM A HORRIBLE TANKIE MORON
WHO LONGS TO SUCK CHAVISTA COCK !

I SUGGEST YOU IGNORE ANY POSTS MADE BY THIS PERSON ABOUT VENEZUELA, POLITICS, OR ANYTHING ACTUALLY !


(This title paid for by money stolen from PDVSA)
Social democracy has failed everywhere, in that it has been incapable of withstanding the assaults against it from neoliberal capitalism. Welfare states are disappearing and soon, thanks to auserity, privatization, etc, there will be none left.

Rated PG-34
Jul 1, 2004




Play posted:

There's a reason capitalism is essentially the "default" system of economics. It is natural to humans and naturally aligns with our sense of ownership, fairness, etc.

that or capitalism spreads like a plague, killing off 'weaker' systems of economics. gg imperialists

hakimashou
Jul 15, 2002
Upset Trowel
Communism is a hellish meatgrinder of evil.

TomViolence
Feb 19, 2013

PLEASE ASK ABOUT MY 80,000 WORD WALLACE AND GROMIT SLASH FICTION. PLEASE.

Play posted:

There's a reason capitalism is essentially the "default" system of economics. It is natural to humans and naturally aligns with our sense of ownership, fairness, etc.

Y'wot? It is not in any way natural, nor does it in any way align with common notions of ownership or fairness, that 8 people in the world hold the same wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion. Capitalism is a global system of perverse incentives that is entirely artificial and is maintained through abuse of state power and corporate hegemony. It's not been corrupted, it's working entirely as designed.

hakimashou
Jul 15, 2002
Upset Trowel

TomViolence posted:

Y'wot? It is not in any way natural, nor does it in any way align with common notions of ownership or fairness, that 8 people in the world hold the same wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion. Capitalism is a global system of perverse incentives that is entirely artificial and is maintained through abuse of state power and corporate hegemony. It's not been corrupted, it's working entirely as designed.

Capitalism will never die or be diminished. Communism is almost entirely eradicated from the world already, tick tock tovarish.

SunAndSpring
Dec 4, 2013

hakimashou posted:

Capitalism will never die or be diminished. Communism is almost entirely eradicated from the world already, tick tock tovarish.

lmfao, that loving last line

"tick tock tovarish", ahahaha. You thought that was a good cool kid finisher.

Hob_Gadling
Jul 6, 2007

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS
Grimey Drawer

Bob le Moche posted:

Social democracy has failed everywhere, in that it has been incapable of withstanding the assaults against it from neoliberal capitalism. Welfare states are disappearing and soon, thanks to auserity, privatization, etc, there will be none left.

A couple posts back you said the same had happened to communism all around the world. Make up your mind.

Otherwise I have to admire your word-for-word perfect quotation of the holy scriptures of communism. It's impressive how deeply you drank the Kool-aid.

Flowers For Algeria
Dec 3, 2005

I humbly offer my services as forum inquisitor. There is absolutely no way I would abuse this power in any way.


hakimashou posted:

Capitalism will never die or be diminished. Communism is almost entirely eradicated from the world already, tick tock tovarish.

You sound like a drunk Tim Wise, except without the good points.

Bob le Moche
Jul 10, 2011

I AM A HORRIBLE TANKIE MORON
WHO LONGS TO SUCK CHAVISTA COCK !

I SUGGEST YOU IGNORE ANY POSTS MADE BY THIS PERSON ABOUT VENEZUELA, POLITICS, OR ANYTHING ACTUALLY !


(This title paid for by money stolen from PDVSA)
"Capitalism will never die", he types, as economic growth is lower than it's been in years, unemployment is rising, eight billionaires own as much wealth as the entire half of the world's population, fascists are struggling to take over the government of the world's mightiest capitalist superpower, and the planet's climate is headed towards full collapse.

(But wait, tech companies are working hard to replace all shipping jobs with self-driving trucks, surely that will solve the crisis!!)

Flowers For Algeria
Dec 3, 2005

I humbly offer my services as forum inquisitor. There is absolutely no way I would abuse this power in any way.


In the Bone Clocks, David Mitchell hints at the idea that Iceland will be the last bastion of civilization and humanity.

He's probably right.

White Rock
Jul 14, 2007
Creativity flows in the bored and the angry!
I admire the optimism of thinking capitalism will last forever after president Cheeto Puff just got elected.

OtherworldlyInvader
Feb 10, 2005

The X-COM project did not deliver the universe's ultimate cup of coffee. You have failed to save the Earth.


Bob le Moche posted:

Over the entire scope of human history, capitalism is a very short and recent development. For its entire small existence it's been defined by instability, crisis, and unprecedented accelerating changes in the fabric of human civilization. Capitalism has become a worldwide system, and has, since its inception, never actually undergone full collapse yet. However, it has come close to it in the past, and has been unable to hold back *localized* revolution at many points in its history. Whenever this has happened, capitalism has survived through different methods that allowed to temporarily push back crisis: genocidal war, colonialism, unsustainable extraction, etc.


"The domino theory" was invented not by marxists but by the U.S. government after WW2, who gave itself the purpose of destroying socialism (they knew it wouldn't do it on its own). The idea was that if you let socialism take hold somewhere, and don't stop it, it will indeed spread and become the new "equilibrium". Local attempts to build socialism have always been defeated by an international alliance of all reactionary forces, ever since the Paris Commune (and even earlier). The ruling classes of all nations understand the threat that socialism poses to them, and will overcome any difference they might have with each other in their common goal of defeating it, at any cost. If you read up on the history of the CIA interventions, for example, you will find a history of repression of socialism movements all over the world, including funding the Taliban against afghan communists, the war on Vietnam, the Contra wars, overthrowing of Chilean democracy, the assassination of civil rights activists in the US, and so many other examples.

Because capitalism is an international system, when any one individual country attempts to challenge the absolute dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, it can be punished through various means such as capital flight and trade sanctions. These means are only available however because of the context of the world capitalist system, and put pressure on socialist countries to maintain a level of exploitation of labor comparable to the rest of the world if they hope to engage in trade, or to defend from invasion. Socialist governments are left with the choice of trying to build socialism in isolation (meaning achieving some level of self-sufficiency, and having a strong enough military to hold the siege), or capitulating to bourgeois interests. Syriza in Greece recently chose the latter, for example, as did many "socialist" parties in europe, whereas North Korea is the consequence of attempting the former. Cuba was able to hold out for a while, but is now letting capitalists take control again, which is what the communist party in China also opted for a long time ago. This is the problem of "socialism in one country", which is a big debate among communists. The dilemma is what has been playing out in Venezuela.

The only time when a level of compromise could be reached between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and where you could see capitalist economies allowing for the existence of some socialist welfare reforms, was during the existence of the soviet bloc, because the left was empowered by the fact that they would receive international socialist support in the event of capitalist blackmail. Ever since the USSR was defeated, welfare states have been dismantled, and neoliberalism rules.

Capitalism however, is, as always, digging its own grave through leveling the conditions all over the world (through international investment, immigration, the eroding of democratic sovereignty, international debt, etc).This means that the crises of capitalism happen in a more and more globalized, and less and less localized fashion, and that eventually, a worldwide crisis might open the way for world revolution.

You state capitalism as a recent development, and one which is characterized by by instability and crisis. Yet the post-WW2 era has exhibited the end of wars between great powers, drastic reductions in violent crime, the near complete elimination of famine in the globalized world, massive reductions in infant mortality, and rising incomes in much of the 3rd world. How has the recent rise of an unstable and chaotic worldwide capitalist system co-existed with massive global reductions in violence and poverty?

In regards to the Domino theory, of the US's two largest military interventions in Southeast Asia one ended in stalemate and the other ended in the fall of the US-supported government to the communist forces. If your theory that communism is only restrained by foreign intervention from capitalists is accurate, then wouldn't the US's failure to halt communist revolutionaries in Southeast Asia have led to the region returning to your proposed equilibrium state of communism (or feudalism?). Why is it that today most of these countries have liberalized their economies, normalized relations with the US, and stabilized from civil/external war? If the answer to that is communist countries succumbing to western trade sanctions, are you arguing that Vietnam, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia, China with the support of the Eastern Bloc was an insufficient to overcome Western trade sanctions and capital flight? If so what is the tipping point where that can be overcome?

gobbagool
Feb 5, 2016

by R. Guyovich
Doctor Rope

OtherworldlyInvader posted:

You state capitalism as a recent development, and one which is characterized by by instability and crisis. Yet the post-WW2 era has exhibited the end of wars between great powers, drastic reductions in violent crime, the near complete elimination of famine in the globalized world, massive reductions in infant mortality, and rising incomes in much of the 3rd world. How has the recent rise of an unstable and chaotic worldwide capitalist system co-existed with massive global reductions in violence and poverty?

In regards to the Domino theory, of the US's two largest military interventions in Southeast Asia one ended in stalemate and the other ended in the fall of the US-supported government to the communist forces. If your theory that communism is only restrained by foreign intervention from capitalists is accurate, then wouldn't the US's failure to halt communist revolutionaries in Southeast Asia have led to the region returning to your proposed equilibrium state of communism (or feudalism?). Why is it that today most of these countries have liberalized their economies, normalized relations with the US, and stabilized from civil/external war? If the answer to that is communist countries succumbing to western trade sanctions, are you arguing that Vietnam, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia, China with the support of the Eastern Bloc was an insufficient to overcome Western trade sanctions and capital flight? If so what is the tipping point where that can be overcome?

You're arguing with a literal college freshman who just read Das Kapital. Give him some space, he'll discover a new outrage to be caremad about soon, maybe veganism or nuclear power

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

hakimashou
Jul 15, 2002
Upset Trowel

SunAndSpring posted:

lmfao, that loving last line



thanks I thought it was pretty funny

hakimashou
Jul 15, 2002
Upset Trowel

Flowers For Algeria posted:

In the Bone Clocks, David Mitchell hints at the idea that Iceland will be the last bastion of civilization and humanity.

He's probably right.

Icleandic people are elves dude, it might be the last bastion of something but it ain't gonna be 'humanity.'

Bob le Moche
Jul 10, 2011

I AM A HORRIBLE TANKIE MORON
WHO LONGS TO SUCK CHAVISTA COCK !

I SUGGEST YOU IGNORE ANY POSTS MADE BY THIS PERSON ABOUT VENEZUELA, POLITICS, OR ANYTHING ACTUALLY !


(This title paid for by money stolen from PDVSA)

OtherworldlyInvader posted:

You state capitalism as a recent development, and one which is characterized by by instability and crisis. Yet the post-WW2 era has exhibited the end of wars between great powers, drastic reductions in violent crime, the near complete elimination of famine in the globalized world, massive reductions in infant mortality, and rising incomes in much of the 3rd world. How has the recent rise of an unstable and chaotic worldwide capitalist system co-existed with massive global reductions in violence and poverty?
The post-WW2 era was also an era of actually-existing socialism and cold war. Since that era ended with the defeat of the USSR, neoliberalism has become the dominant economic policy in the capitalist world, and we've seen extreme and ever-increasing inequality the world over, and more recently rising tensions between the few remaining imperialist powers that show a lot of similarities with the pre-WW1 buildup (as i've mentioned we've also seen the erosion of welfare states, labour rights, etc). Relative peace can also be a sign of control and domination, as state violence and repression becomes more efficient and targeted; the US having quadrupled the number of its citizens it incarcerates in that period, developed a surveillance apparatus capable of spying on the online and phone conversations of every citizen that the KGB would never have dreamed of, as well as the ability to remotely drone-assassinate individual targets pretty much anywhere in the world, etc.
Steven Pinker is the guy who has been the principal recent advocate of the ideas you're talking about (he wrote the "better angels of our nature" book), and many other scholars have pointed out serious flaws in his methods and data, which can be often suspect or come from untrustworthy or cherry-picked sources. He continues to be promoted and offered a platform by all the TED-talks type organizations, though, because the optimistic narrative of progress he presents is a pretty useful one for them to promote. The World Bank for example, produces a lot of the data that gets cited on poverty rates, etc, but it also operates as a private financial institution with no public accountability, and justifies its for-profit business through neoliberal economic theories: its shareholders have a strong vested interest in it releasing positive results about the effect of its policies.
I'm still open to the idea that such a positive post-ww2 trend exists, but I can only see it as temporary, and predicated on unsustainable capitalist growth the limits of which will eventually be reached. I would also add that a less hungry, more healthy proletariat, might not actually necessarily be very good news for capitalism.

OtherworldlyInvader posted:

Why is it that today most of these countries have liberalized their economies, normalized relations with the US, and stabilized from civil/external war? If the answer to that is communist countries succumbing to western trade sanctions, are you arguing that Vietnam, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia, China with the support of the Eastern Bloc was an insufficient to overcome Western trade sanctions and capital flight? If so what is the tipping point where that can be overcome?
My argument was that, for a while, during the Cold War, the Eastern Bloc did perform such a function. However, it was eventually defeated by the West. This was achieved through various means including pressure on the socialist economy through the insanity that was the nuclear arms race, and covert/military interventions, but also the corruption of the USSR political system and institutions, which is how things ended up with a situation where cadres peacefully agreed to sell out to capitalism in order become the new oligarchs of the dystopian hellhole that has been post-socialist Russia.
I'm not at all sure what the tipping point would be, but as long as we're wildly speculating about counterfactuals, I'd think that if the German revolution hadn't failed, as in if German liberals hadn't allowed the nazis to take power, it would probably have been enough to tip the scales. It's certainly what the Bolsheviks were expecting and counting on, since they didn't expect the revolution to go very far without a major Western industrial power on board, and the fact that it didn't happen led to a major change of plans and Stalin's "socialism in one country" policies. All other instances of successful socialist revolutions since then have also taken place in periphery countries that had been kept relatively underdeveloped by imperialism.

I would add a caveat though, about the fact that the situation in places like China and Vietnam is a bit weird. Although these economies function as capitalist for all intents and purposes, there's uncertainty as to whether the state really is at the complete service of capital in the way that it is in the West. It still, at the very least, claims to be committed to the goal of building socialism, and to only allow capitalist investment for development purposes and survival in the global market, with always the plan of nationalizing once conditions are ready for a transition to socialism. I don't lend very much credence to that official line myself, but some communists are betting on the support of these countries with a communist party and a capitalist economy to lend support to an eventual future new socialist "bloc".

Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Jan 25, 2017

Hogge Wild
Aug 21, 2012

by FactsAreUseless
Pillbug

Flowers For Algeria posted:

America is feudalizin' by the minute.

Feudalism is a system where a lord pays his soldiers in land. I don't think that it's happening in America.

ugh its Troika
May 2, 2009

by FactsAreUseless
Marx and Engels were gay lovers, thus communism can only be viewed through the lens of grunting, sweaty man-love.

Kathleen
Feb 26, 2013

Grimey Drawer

Sun Wu Kampf posted:

Marx and Engels were gay lovers, thus communism can only be viewed through the lens of grunting, sweaty man-love.

sounds p. good to me

do people itt actually dislike the idea of a communist civilisation, or just the attempts certain states in the 20th century made to try and get there?

Kathleen fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Jan 25, 2017

TomViolence
Feb 19, 2013

PLEASE ASK ABOUT MY 80,000 WORD WALLACE AND GROMIT SLASH FICTION. PLEASE.

those chairs posted:

do people itt actually dislike the idea of a communist civilisation, or just the attempts certain states in the 20th century made to try and get there?

It does seem that most of the critics in this thread consider communism to be marxism-leninism and its offshoots and nothing else, so they're basically Horselord but coming at it from the other direction. Because of this they end up critiquing just one egregiously centralised and authoritarian brand of socialism and even then are mainly critiquing authoritarian governments in general rather than socialist ones in particular.

Rakosi
May 5, 2008

D&D: HASBARA SQUAD
NO-QUARTERMASTER


From the river (of Palestinian blood) to the sea (of Palestinian tears)

those chairs posted:

sounds p. good to me

do people itt actually dislike the idea of a communist civilisation, or just the attempts certain states in the 20th century made to try and get there?

I like some socialist ways of doing things, such as healthcare and infrastructure. I don't think it is literally a good model for everything.

I also think college freshman internet communists are very embarrassing, as are the older people who basically think the same but should know better (read: lots on these guys on SA)

Flowers For Algeria
Dec 3, 2005

I humbly offer my services as forum inquisitor. There is absolutely no way I would abuse this power in any way.


hakimashou posted:

Icleandic people are elves dude, it might be the last bastion of something but it ain't gonna be 'humanity.'

Whatever, a pastoral Eden of leisure and tolkiensian poetry sounds like the ideal society. The ship to Valinor only takes communists.

Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Jan 25, 2017

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

rudatron
May 31, 2011

by Fluffdaddy
The biggest anticoms are always nazis, because the future of universal love & brotherhood is an existential threat to fascists.

Normal people tend to just have feasibility concerns, which actually aren't that hard to overcome, and are much less decisive than people think. Face it capitalistailures, there's no good argument against communism.

  • Locked thread