Communism works, according to the Dimocrats in DC

Just what is it when the people of a country are able to start their own company, run it and keep the profits? IMO, that is diametrically opposed communism.

 

I think he's desperately trying to hang on to his weak argument....and moron joe isn't doing his share to help.

 

Whether any of those things are true or not is irrelevant. Your criteria was met exactly. I can't help that you found something real or imagined to whine about.

 

Guy Medley said: ↑

Thats fine, David, but the fact that China is a communist country still remains. And the fact they have surpassed the world in economics and growth is still relevant. So yes, a single example is all I need to refute your claim that communism doesn't work.​

​

Guy, the example you are using is the definition of failure to a Communist. Let me put it in their terms;

China is a failure by communist standards. Does an expanding middle class (bourgeois) living a western life style while others are left behind to starve a measure of success. Are massive factories where suicide nets are placed around buildings your idea of a worker's paradise. Are foreign owned factories profiting off cheap labor your definition of Communism or is it exploitation? Is the sole purpose of industry to provide trinkets for Yankees. You state that China has surpassed the world in economics and growth but fail to mention the human cost. Only a capitalist measures success by wealth and prestige. Are the fruits of labor being shared equitably? Are the people and their communities in harmony with each other? What is the quality of the human condition there? Answer those questions and you might understand the appeal of Communism.

Sound great on paper, but I don't think I've ever seen it achieved on a national scale. I think communism, like true democracy can only be successful in small communities. The kibbutz of Israel and communes of California are the only examples I can think of. The main difference between the two, democracy puts individual rights ahead of the community while communism places the community first. Also, a democracy can reverse it's decisions quickly and allows individual initiative. Communism buy most models relies on a bureaucracy which tend to act cautiously and are slow to change.

 

Well, one could sidestep the issue all day long, but the Department of State, as well as over 150 countries, recognize China as a communist state. Debate over just how communist it is is irrelevant. The fact remains.

 

C Jay, while I agree with what you said about the human cost of communism and the toll it has taken with the people in China, it's not what I was debating. The system in place worked...maybe not humanely or to the benefit of most, but it does nonetheless work. We could use our own democratic past to illustrate similar human right abuses to the supposed benefit of growth, from slavery to child labor.

 

I wonder how McCarthy would see this.

 

Is China politically and socially Communist, absolutely. Are they economically Communist, my guess would be about 60/40. As mentioned earlier, even Lenin re-instated capitalism to resolve the problems with collective farming. What China is doing today is what Gorbachev was attempting to do in the 80's before he was ousted, which is introducing limited capitalism to build a stronger economy. What we want to call it, we'll have to agree to disagree. Being politically Communist, could they revert to 100% state owned economic Communism, yes, in the blink of an eye. Cuba and Venezuela nationalize industries over night which should be fair warning to anyone operating factories over there. I respect your opinion and think it's more of a matter of semantics, which we could go around and around about until we're both board silly. Have a good holiday and best to you any yours.

How would McCarthy see this? I would be surrounded by microphones being asked some very tough and embarrassing question on my political leaning as a youth. As they say, show me a young man who is not a Communist, and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old man who is not a Capitalist, and I'll show you a man without a brain.

 

What I posted were facts presented by the author of the peice you quoted...the "thriving" part you focused on was simply his opinion.

 

The thing is, C Jay, it isn't my opinion at all. It's internationally recognized around the world, by governments, as a communist state. That isn't opinion, it's fact.

 

Politically, yes. Economically, no. China has adopoted a form of capitalism called "state capitalism" in order to prosper economically.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

In his book, The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations, political scientist Ian Bremmer describes China as the primary driver for the rise of state capitalism as a challenge to the free market economies of the developed world, particularly in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.[51] Bremmer describes state capitalism thus:[52]

In this system, governments use various kinds of state-owned companies to manage the exploitation of resources that they consider the state's crown jewels and to create and maintain large numbers of jobs. They use select privately owned companies to dominate certain economic sectors. They use so-called sovereign wealth funds to invest their extra cash in ways that maximize the state's profits. In all three cases, the state is using markets to create wealth that can be directed as political officials see fit. And in all three cases, the ultimate motive is not economic (maximizing growth) but political (maximizing the state's power and the leadership's chances of survival). This is a form of capitalism but one in which the state acts as the dominant economic player and uses markets primarily for political gain.​

​

Now, state capitalism isn't true capitalism but, rather, communism using capitalist ideals as an economic growth tool. What it boils down to is that even communists recognize that their system doesn't work and they must rely on capitalism to survive.

I believe there are members on this forum who would like to see the U.S. convert to a form of state capitalism (or socialism a' la Venezuela). But, as Bremmer stated, the ultimate goal of state capitalism is not economic, but political. You will find those forum members on the left side of the political divide.

 

The only political party in China is the Communist party, all those in power belong to the communist party simply because a government allows a certain amount of economic freedom (In the interest of the state) dont mean that they are no longer communist. A good example of this was when all over the place communist governments were falling (including Russia) the Chinese put down dissenters (remember Tineman square guy's) No matter how successful a businessman is in China if he stops following the edicts from the politburo he can and will be removed. It has happened more than once, including to members of the government. Vietnam is a fairly successful country and that is still communist. As for the Left itself, there is a resurgence of support for it in parts of Europe at the moment.

 

The title of this post states that Communism Works. Any and all examples put forth are where a Communist state abandons the primary principle behind communism (communal state ownership of industry) and adopts it's anti-thesis capitalism. The only example I have seen is Joe's of Tripura which is a province, not a nation state, with the geographical advantage of isolation. They are running a 22% poverty rate which I would think is successful by Communist standards.

 

Not my example and neither has China abandon communism since capitalism isn't a system of government but an economic system.

 

And Communism includes, by definition, an economic system.

 

Since we love to cut and paste here's the 10 points in the Communist Manifesto;

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents
of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means
of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive
monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport
in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by
the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and
the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a
common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of
industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries;
gradual abolition of the distinction between town and
country, by a more equable distribution of the population
over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools.
Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form.
Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

So where's the part about free enterprise and private ownership.

 

You're correct that capitalism (as well as communism) is an economic system. However, in addition to being an economic system, communism is also a political scheme whose tenet is collectivism. Whereas capitalism is usually employed by democratic nations as a means to generate wealth and to create a viable economy, the failed communist nations employed communism not only as a political device, but as their economic system, too.

But, the Chinese don't adhere completely to the economic principles of communism. As I've explained previously, they've adopted a form of "state capitalism" wherein their wealth is obtained via economic capitalism, but is controlled by a politically communist entity.