There are no more Communists
 

80 years ago, the best and brightest minds were wondering whether Communism might be an improvement to the evils of Capitalism.

And so many countries began social experiments and harshly controlled their economies. Political leaders declared which goods would be made, which plants would be built, which crops would be sowed. The triumph of order over the disorder of markets, they announced, would "bury" the west.

It didn't work. In fact it was generally disaster wherever attempted. And we should occasionally remind ourselves of this fact, because eastern economies have learned it well. China was putting in free markets in the 80s. So one recent IotD might be labeled:

http://cellar.org/2010/marketschange.jpg

Now, today, we have the nail in the coffin: the last of the central planners threw in the towel.

North Korea lifts free market ban to prevent famine

Too bad about the many, many millions starved and killed to try to make planned economies work.

Don't worry, we've still got lots of idiots trying to make socialism work here in America.

Viva la revolucion!

If you're going to make an omelet you have to break some eggs.

Communism has only failed in the past because it's not gone far enough. It's not had enough power or control to protect the rights and interests of the people.

What we really need is world wide communism. Or as O might say, universal C. :)

UC will fix everything forever.

Around here there's a beer called Utica Club, or UC for short. As kids, we made up different obscene names for UC. Never as obscene as universal communism tho.

That's exactly what they want you to think. Sucker.

The communist party is alive and well in China. The party still is in control of the nation’s banks and through them extends loans to China’s important companies. Government bailouts are highly controversial in the US, but in China it is the norm for major businesses to receive interest free loans and in general be propped up by the party.

The Chinese government still heavily censors the amount and type of information available to the Chinese people. Look at the huge Google/Internet controversy that has gone on there. And China’s record on human rights is still dismal. Communist China continues to enforce its one child policy which has resulted in the disproportionate abortion of female children and has lead to a major imbalance in the number of elderly versus the smaller proportion of the young population.

From the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/id...munism/?page=2

I thought communism and socialism were two different things?

They're Communists because we call them that, not because they adhere to any of Karl Marx's writings.

Nuance is not useful when you need to create angry people. I am not a fan of planned economies, whether the planning comes from the State or state sponsored corporations. There needs to be a middle way that does not feed hateful reactionaries, but I'm not seeing it.

Yeah, I am always skeptical about a country that is so awesome that the government will kill anyone who tries to leave.

North Korea?

North Korea, East Germany, Soviet Russia, Canada.

You left out New Jersey.

:headsmack:

something I read recently (I'm pretty sure it was a Time article comparing East and West Germany) regarding communist (or former) communist countries stuck with me: they did not value beauty. So many of these countries appear (appear, because I'm relying on photos) to be dingy, dismal, utilitarian--with no support for natural or manmade beauty. Now they are stuck with ugly cities and ugly lives.

Also, ironically, or perhaps not, some of the most powerful art came out of the most repressive regimes. Perhaps if making art = death then the posers won't step to the plate.

Well gues what? you have one very angry people right here in the US of A. Get use to it it is about to get much worse.

Since the genuinely hateful and genuinely reactionary combination is less than one tenth of one percent of the population, I don't see an enormous problem here.

Beauty is a costly upgrade. That's one of the things that concerns me about the teabaggers. They won't want to pay for beauty.

Sort of true but it all goes to "ISMS" running afoul of Mother Nature (or at least human nature)

Communism expects everyone to work for the greater good of the whole but people are pretty much stuck on looking out for #1.

Similarly Capitalism fails because so many people are simply greedy. Wall Street Ponzi schemes, tax breaks for the wealthy, mortgage tools intended only for personal gain.
While Buffet & Bill and Melinda might be putting their wealth to work there are a few thousand millionaires more interested in Swiss banking than their fellow man.

There should be reward for risk but there should also be food, healthcare and dignity.

They had enough power/control to protect the rights and interests of the "people", but they had no interest in protecting the rights and interests of the individual.

Welcome to the Cellar, nietzschedanced. :D

Welcome, Nietzschedanced.

Those are not failures of capitalism, they are attempts at gaming the system, by sharpies and grifters. This goes on wherever there is a system of any kind. (There was probably some ancient Spartan trying to corner the market on iron, or on its distribution.) Socialism had and has a raft of 'em too, and featured protection of such gamesters and cheats through social, or class, privilege. If you were in the Nomenklatura, you could indulge in corruption your whole life without penalty.

It vexes the Left to mention, but capitalism not only can be practiced ethically, it is at its most profitable when this is done, so capitalism plain should be done that way. The Left doesn't want to hear that, because they are always looking for dirt to throw upon capitalism and its traditional, human values. But they are doomed to failure at anticapitalism and conversion back to human ways, because capitalism, in both its systematic and its unsystematic features, constitutes what humans do, absent government interference or meddling.

Socialism mandates meddling with what humans do in the one known natural way. Phooey to socialism.

I think you're shifting from communism to socialism to easily. Here are some terms and systems as I understand them.

Marxism: means of production of each workplace controlled by the workers in that workplace - kind of cooperative capitalism. Almost unknown in the world today outside of a kibbutz.

Lenin/stalinist communism: means of production controlled by central government - kind of state-owned capitalism. Vestiges of this remain in china, Vietnam, and a lot in North Korea.

Socialism - means of production generally privately owned, but subject to extra taxation to fund social welfare programs - most significantly, the welfare of all people is considered to be (at least partly) a state/collective responsibility. Found in varying degrees in many countries today.

Free-market capitalism - means of production privately owned, state takes no responsibility for the welfare of individuals (private charity is often involved).

Corporate socialism - means of production privately controlled, corporations take responsibility for the welfare of their workers (Japanese system, see also benevolent capitalists like Owen, Cadbury, Ford).

All have their strengths and weaknesses. All systems will have cheats and crooks. We're human. Communism will have its slackers and bullies, capitalism will have it's Madoffs and Leheman Bros.

I think it is pretty clear that you get more economic growth with private ownership of means of production, even when you allow for the regular booms and crashes of a market system.

We might asks ourselves, though, how much more economic growth do we need? Adam Smith's goal of growth and wealth made excellent sense 200 years ago, but it might be argued that - for modern OECD nations - human well-being is better advanced by things other than economic growth.

I recently read an article about Bhutan, where the king has declared that gross national happiness is more important than gross national product.