there was not a communist state in Russia. It was a dictatorship that controlled the wealth and power of the state..
It was a dictatorship and communist according to the normal useage of the world or socialist according to Marx's use of the term. These things are not mutually exlusive.
It was neither socialism nor communism according to Marxist theory. It was a dicatorship that Lenin and Stalin attempted to pass off as communistic. At best Russia implemented a bastard hybrid called Marxist Leninism but only because Marxist theory was paid lip service.
The distinction is critically important. Too many people in this country believe that Russia had some form of socialistic/communistic gov't.........its simply not true. Russia was just another run of the mill dictatorship with a different twist......it tried to pretend it was something else.
..that's not at all what Marx intended.
Marx intedned a dictatorship as a tranistional phase. I don't think he planed it to last 70 years, but he expected it to exit.
A dictatorship of the proletariat, and not by an individual or a cabal of 3 or 4 people or a committee of twenty or 120. Nearly everything that Marx proposed was perverted by the Russians.
but you can not have a communistic dictatorship.........it would be an oxymoron.
Not at all an oxymoron according to the normal use of the term, and if you want to specificaly focus on Marx then it would be a socialist dictatorship rather then communist.
Why not a communistic dictatorship?
That's why he was ahead of his time.
Its an idea who's time has not come and probably never will.
Its time has to come........the capitalist system can only be an intermediary phase in human development. Capitalism is too exploitive of people, natural resources, the environment. Marx's theories were better but I don't think it will be the end result either......something else..maybe something in between....maybe socialism or something else.
Under communism, things like demand and prices is not as relevant as in a capitalistic system.
Under any economic system demand is relevant.
Demand wasn't relevant under the Russian system. Production was diverted from consumer products to WMD. The consumer demand was there; the Russian leaders simply ignored it. Consumer demand became irrelevant and the people dared not object.
If a communist system (whether or not you are refering to Marx's idea of "true communism") uses up resources producing things people don't want then it will have less resources to share.
Prices are important to communicate the relative level of supply and demand.
In a capitalist and socialistic system.......not in a communistic system.
They do so far better then any person, comittee, party, or government could even if the people making the decisions where the wisest and most inteligent and most observent and most moral people the world has ever seen they would not be able to cope with this responsibility as well as a free market can.
No, they [prices] don't.......the free system is very inefficient. You don't have to look any further than the recent tech boom and bust. Trust me, we have yet to find the holy grail.........a better system is out there.
The problem is you are trying to understand this from a capitalist perspective. Using the kibbutz as an example, their economic model is to produce goods and services that benefit the entire kibbutz whether they are consumed by the kibbutz or sold to others outside the kibbutz. All the revenue and profits belong to the kibbutz. Every member of the kibbutz shares equally in those profits. How the profits are distributed depends on the particular economic model of the kibbutz. The motive for producing the products is to insure the well being of all the members of the kibbutz, not just one or two individuals. Its communal living arrangement.
The Kibbutz can know what to produce and how much because it is a small system operating in a capitalist system. There is actually some simularity to a company. A company doesn't usually have internal markets for its factors of production. The Kibbutz's aims and philosophy will be different then most private companies but it relates to the larger economy in a similar way.
A kibbutz is very different than a company......its made up of individuals who each have a proprietary interest in the kibbutz and must agree on what the common good is before they can move forward. Your analogy would be apt if the company was owned by the workers as Marx proposed.
A nation's, esp. a large nation's, economy is much more complex. Even if everyone was wise and good we would not know how many products and services to produce without the signals given by prices in a market economy.
We don't know now.......our recessions reflect the imprecise nature of our system. Its during recessions inventory overstocking is corrected. Why do you think companies have instituted the just in time inventory system? Overstocking has been the bane of our system........at best we can only guess at what the consumer wants.
I try to stay as close to the facts as possible.
Facts are simple things. Facts are not like "socialism works" or "socialism causes all sorts of problems". Facts are specific. "Socialism works" is a theory. You can and should back up your theory with facts but they are not the same thing.
"Socialism works" is not a theory; its fact. As Marx intended it to be, socialism does work in countries like Sweden and Denmark. Does it have problems......yes but so do we. When I talk about facts, I mean that I speak of socialism and communism as they were intended by definition......and not based on spin or myth developed by people with an agenda.
I am not sure what you mean by economic ideas
Ideas about how the economy of the US and other countries and the world works, could work, or should work. Ideas about how changeing economic systems would change incentives and outputs and peoples lives. Ideas about economics both practical and theoretical.
I don't think it comes as a big surprise that I believe we need to be more concerned with common issues that face society. I think we need to make stronger efforts to bring more people into the economic largess that exists in this country. I think we need to move away from consumerism and be more concerned with the important issues of life........like the environment.
If you are wondering if I am a capitalist, the answer is yes. However, I understand the issue of the common good......and I blend that in with my capitalistic perspective. Let me know if that answers your question.
Not really. The question was where your economic ideas come from not what you would label them. Is there any expierences in your life that led you to where you are on this subject? Did some economic writing or class or other type of presentation of economic ideas make a lot of sense to you and thus lead you to some of your ideas and opinions? Its just a matter of curiosity. I don't think it effects the strength of your arguments either way.
Living in MN and the Pacific NW has made me realize that there are at least two different economic subsystems in play in the US. Its not surprising that both places were heavily settled by the Scandinavians. There is the Pacific NW and MN, and then there is the rest of the world.
Both are capitalistic in nature but one is more concerned with the common good. Over time, its been my observation that the areas of the country more concerned with the common good tend to prosper better then those where a purer form of capitalism is in play. There is more economic wealth per person; the people are better educated and they tend to live longer.
Many times people have said that MN and the Pacific NW are going to blow it because of high taxes, strong gov't and having their priorities in the wrong places. So far the naysayers have been proven wrong.
ted |
