Capitalism and Socialism

international | anti-capitalism | opinion/analysis

Wednesday October 05, 2005 16:45

by O Ruairc - IRSM

Every year since 1990, the United Nations publishes its Human
Development Report. It contains the most authoritative data on the
state of the world. These reports are available online:
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/view_reports.cfm?type=1. Based on those
reports (referred to by year, followed by page), what does our world
look like?

CAPITALISM

We live in a capitalist world. Capitalism is a very dynamic system
that produces a tremendous amount of wealth. Never has the world been
so rich.

Global output increased more than eleven fold between 1850 and 1960,
from $611 billion to $6,936 billion in 1993 dollars. The world's
population more than doubled during the same period, rising from 1.2
billion in 1850 to 3 billion in 1960. The net outcome: nearly a
fivefold increase in per capita income. During the same period, the
goods and services produced in the industrial countries expanded
nearly thirty fold, from $212 billion to $6,103 billion (1996, 12)

Between 1960 and 1993, global income increased from $4 trillion to $23
trillion, and per capita income more than tripled. (1996, 12) If
trends continue, it should grow form 23 trillion in 1993 to 56
trillion in 2030. (1996, 36)

Global GDP increased nine folds from $3 trillion to $30 trillion over
the past 50 years. (1999, 25)

It has allowed a huge development of consumerism. Private and public
consumption expenditure reached $24 trillion in 1998, twice the level
of 1975 and six times that of 1950. In 1900, real consumption
expenditure was barely $1.5 trillion. (1998, 1)

INEQUALITY

But capitalism has made the world a very unequal place.

The people living in the 20% richest countries in the world have 86%
of global GDP (global income), 82% of world export markets, 68% of
Foreign Direct Investment. (1999, 3)

The richest 1% of the world received as much income as the poorest
57%. The richest 10% of the US population (around 25 million people)
have a combined income greater than that of the poorest 43% of the
world population (around 2 billion people). (2001, 19; 2003, 39)

The poorest 40% of the world's population account for 5% of global
income, the richest 10% account for 54%.(2005, 4)

The 20% of the world's people in the high income countries account for
86% of total private consumption expenditure. The poorest 20% for a
mere 1.3%.

The richest fifth consume 45% of all meat and fish, 58% of total
energy, 65% of electricity, 84% of all paper, have 74% of phone lines
and own 87% of the world’s vehicle fleet. The poorest fifth
consumes
5%, less than 4%, 1.1%, 1.5%, and less than 1% of all this. (1998, 2)

The poorest 20% of the world's people saw their share of the global
income decline from 2.3% to 1.4% in the past 30 years, meanwhile the
share of the richest 20% rose from 70% to 85%. (1996, 2)

Capitalism not only creates inequality, but it increases it both
between and within countries. The income gap between the richest
countries and the poorest countries was a ratio of 1:3 in 1820. This
increased to 1:7 in 1870 and 1:11 in 1913. In 1960 it was 1:30 and in
1990 1:60. In 1997 it was 1:74. (1999, 3)

Measured at the extremes, the gap between the average citizen in the
richest and in the poorest countries is wide and getting wider. In
1990 the average American was 38 times richer than the average
Tanzanian. Today the average American is 61 times richer. (2005, 37)

A Zambian today has less chance of reaching thirty years of age than
someone born in England in 1840. (2005, 4, 26)

GROWING INEQUALITY

A study of 77 countries with 82% of the world's population shows that
between the 1950s and the 1990s, inequality rose in 45 of those
countries and fell in 16 countries. (2001, 17)

Inequality within countries has been increasing over the last 30
years. Among the 73 countries with data (and 80% of the world's
people), 48 have seen inequality increase since the 1950s, 16 have
experienced no change, and only 9 (with 4% of the world's people) have
seen inequality fall. (2002, 20)

Between the 1980s and the late 1990s inequality increased in 42 of 73
countries with complete and comparable data. Only 6 of the 33
development countries saw inequality decline, while 17 saw an
increase. "In other words, within national boundaries, control over
assets and resources is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a
few people." (2003, 39)

Inequality is on the increase in countries which account for 80% of
the world's population. (2005, 6)

Between 1979 and 1997, US real GDP per capita grew 38%, but the income
of a family with median earnings grew only 9%. So most of the gain was
captured by the very richest people, with the incomes of the richest
1% of families growing 140%, three times the average. The income of
the top 1% of families was 10 times that of the median family in 1979
and 23 times in 1997. (2002, 20)

INFANTANT MORTALITY

The USA has the same infant mortality rate as Malaysia, a country with
an average income one quarter that of the USA. And the Indian state of
Kerala has an infant death rate lower than that for African Americans
in Washington DC. (2005, 58)

DISPOSABLE INCOME

At the end of the 1970s, the richest 10% of the UK population received
21% of total disposable income. Twenty years later, it received 28%,
nearly was much as for the entire bottom half of the population.
Average annual incomes for the richest 20% increased at about ten
times the rate for the poorest 20%. (3.8% compared with 0.4%) The UK's
GINI coefficient climbed from 25 to 35 by the mid-1990s, one of the
biggest increases in inequality in the world. (2005, 68)

A FAILING SYSTEM

As a system, capitalism does not work for the vast majority of the
world's population; it fails to provide for their basic needs.

Of the 4.4 billion people in developing countries, nearly three fifth
lack basic sanitation. A third have no access to clean water. A
quarter do not have adequate housing. A fifth no access to health
services. (1998, 2)

More than one billion people lack access to safe water. (2005, 24)
More than 2.6 billion lack access to improved sanitation. (2005, 24)
More than 850 million people, including one in three preschool
children suffer from malnutrition. (2005, 24)

$1 A DAY

One in five people in the world, more than one billion, still survive
on less than $1 a day in abject poverty. (2005, 24) "Living on $1 a
day does not mean being able to afford what $1 would buy when
converted into a local currency, but the equivalent of what $1 would
buy in the United States, a newspaper, a local bus ride, a bag of
rice." (2003, 41)

Another 1.5 billion people live on $1-2 a day. (2005, 24) "One fifth
of humanity lives in countries where many people think nothing of
spending $2 a day on capuccino. Another fifth of humanity survives on
less than $1 a day and live in countries where children die for want
of a simple anti-mosquito bed net." (2005, 3)

ILLITERACY

There are 854 million illiterate adults, 543 million of them women,
325 million children (one in seven) out of school at primary and
secondary levels, 183 million of them girls. (2001, 9) More than one
billion people live without adequate shelter, sanitation, electricity,
and there are 100 million people homeless sleeping in the street.
(1996,24)

THE WEALTHY

But capitalism allows a tiny minority to accumulate a vast amount of
wealth.

The 350 largest companies in the world account for 40% of global trade
and their turnover exceeds the GDP of many countries.

The turnover of General Motors ($168.8 billion) exceeds that of the
GDP of Denmark ($146.1 billion).

The turnover of Ford ($137.1 billion) exceeds the GDP of South Africa
($123.3 billion).

The turnover of Toyota ($111.1 billion), Exxon ($110 billion) and
Royal Dutch/Shell ($109.8 billion) exceeds the GDP of Norway, Poland
and Portugal ($109.6, $92.8, and $91.6 billion respectively).

The turnover of IBM ($72 billion) is greater than that of Malaysia
($68.5 billion). The combined assets of the top five corporations
($871.4 billion) is greater than that of the combined GDP of South
Asia ($451.3 billion), Sub-Saharan Africa ($246.8 billion) and least
developed countries ($76.5 billion). (1997, 92)

BILLIONAIRES

Between 1989 and 1996 the number of billionaires increased from 157 to
447. Today the net wealth of the ten richest billionaires is $133
billion, more than 1.5 times the total national income of all the
least developed countries. (1997, 38)

The world's 200 richest people more than doubled their net worth in
the four years to 1998, to more than $1 trillion. The assts of the top
three billionaires are more than the combined GNP of all least
developed countries and their 600 million people. (1999, 3)

The world's 225 richest people have a combined wealth of over $1
trillion, equal to the annual income of the poorest 47% of the world
($2.5 billion). It is estimated that the cost of achieving and
maintaining universal access to education for all, health care for
all, reproductive health care for all women, adequate food for all and
safe water and sanitation for all is roughly $40 billion a year (0.1%
of world income). This is less than 4% of the combined wealth of the
225 richest people in the world. (1998, 30)

MATERIAL RESOURCES

The material resources to end poverty and inequality are there.

To provide universal access to basic social services and transfers to
alleviate income poverty with efficient targeting would cost roughly
$80 billion. That is less than 0.5% of global income and less than the
combined net worth of the seven richest men in the world. (1997, 112)

Redistributing 1.6% of the income of the richest 10 percent of the
global population would provide the $300 billion needed to lift the
one billion people living on less than a dollar a day out of extreme
poverty. (2005, 4)

COMPARATIVES EXPENDITURES

However, meeting the basic needs of the world's population is not a
priority for capitalism.

The annual expenditure necessary to provide basic education for all
around the world is $6 billion. In comparison, the annual expenditure
for cosmetics in the USA is $8 billion.

Annual expenditure to provide water and sanitation for all is $9
billion. In comparison the annual expenditure on ice cream in Europe
is $11 billion. The annual expenditure to provide reproductive health
for all women is $12 billion. In comparison, the annual expenditure on
perfumes in Europe and the USA is $12 billion.

Annual expenditure necessary to provide basic health and nutrition is
$13 billion. In contrast, annual expenditure on pet foods in Europe
and USA is $17 billion. Compared to all those, annual military
spending in the world is $780 billion. (1998, 37)

For every $1 that rich countries spend on aid, they allocate $10 to
military spending. Current spending on HIV/AIDS, a disease that claims
3 million lives per year, represents three days' worth of military
spending (2005, 8)

The $7 billion needed to provide 2.6 billion people with access to
clean water is less than European spends on perfume and less than
Americans spend on elective corrective surgery. This is for an
investment that would save an estimated 4,000 lives each day. (2005,
8)

PROFIT NOT NEED

This is because capitalism is a system based on profit rather than
need. Food production has increased and prices fallen.

"If all the food produced worldwide were distributed equally, every
person would be able to consume 2,760 calories a day -- hunger is
defined as consuming under 1,960 calories a day." (2003, 87)

But as a result of the operations of capitalism, every day, 800
million people (almost one in five) go hungry, and every year ten
million people die of hunger.

MEDICINES

Millions of people are in desperate need of medicines. But as the
pharmaceutical industry is capitalist in nature, less than 10% of
global spending on health research addressed 90% of the global disease
burden and health problems of 90% of the world's people. (2002, 7)
People dying of hunger in a world where there has never been so much
food, and people dying because they lack essential medicines because
less than 10% of global spending on health research and production
addresses 90% of the global disease burden shows that a system based
on profit rather than need is irrational and inhuman.

HUMAN COST

The human costs of maintaining the present system are far too high.
Every year, 10.7 million children died before five of preventable
causes (2005, 24) This means that every hour of everyday, 12000
children die of preventable causes. (2005, 1)

In the 1990s the number of children killed by diarrhea exceeded the
number of people killed in armed conflicts since the Second World War.
(2003, 104)

Some 500,000 women die in pregnancy or childbirth each year, one for
every minute of the day. In Sub-Saharan Africa, a woman is one hundred
times more likely to die in pregnancy or childbirth than in a
high-income OECD country. (2003)

THE ENVIRONMENT

The environmental costs of maintaining capitalism are also too high.
The problem is that corporations resist regulations and do not take
into account damage to the environment; resulting in water scarcity,
deforestation, desertification, pollution and natural disaster.
Annual carbon dioxide emissions quadrupled over the past 50 years.
Sulphur dioxide emissions have more than doubled during the same
period. (98, 4)

Burning of fossil fuels has almost quintupled since 1950, consumption
of fresh water has doubled since 1960, marine catch has increased
fourfold, wood consumption is now 40% higher than 25 years ago.
(1998, 2)

In industrial countries, per capita waste generation has increased
threefold in the past 20 years. Water's global availability has
dropped from 17,000 cubic meters per capita in 1950 to 7,000 today.

A sixth of the world's land area (2 billion hectares) is degraded as a
result of poor farming since 1945. Forests are shrinking, since 1970
the wooded area per 1,000 people has fallen from 11.4 square kilometer
to 7.3. Some eight million to ten million acres of forest land are
lost each year.

Fish stocks are declining with about a quarter in danger of depletion
and another 44% being fished at their biological limits. Wild species
are becoming extinct 50 to 100 times faster than they would naturally.
(1998, 4)

And during 1967-1993 natural disasters affected three billion people
in developing countries with more than seven million deaths and two
million injuries. At current rate of loss, 15% of the earth's species
could disappear over the next 25 years. (1996, 26)

Air pollution is a serious problem for 700 million people, primarily
women and children. 2.7 million deaths each year from air pollution
(1998, 5)

THE ALTERNATIVES

A common objection is that capitalism might not be good, however there
are no alternatives. Socialism does and did not work, the fact that
countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union abandoned it
and adopted capitalism proves it.

However, the UN's Human Development Reports show the achievements and
successes of socialism. It notes that socialism was one of the world's
history's "great ascent from human poverty". "There have been two
great ascents from human poverty in recent history: the first in
industrial countries during the late 19th and the early 20th
centuries, and the second in developing countries, Eastern Europe and
the former Soviet Union after the Second World War. They had similar
elements, but the second had a larger scale and a faster timetable.
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union made advances: infant
mortality was reduced by half, from 81 to 41 per 1,000 live births.
Life expectancy increased from 58 to 66 years for men and from 63 to
74 years for women. And income poverty was declining. In Hungary
between the early 1960s and 1972, the proportion of people living
below the poverty line fell from 60% to 14%". (1997, 25)

CHINA AND INDIA

If we compare similar countries today on the basis of Human
Development Indicators, socialist China and capitalist India, or
socialist Cuba and capitalist Latin America, the achievements
successes of socialism compared to capitalism are evident.

Since 1949, China has made impressive reductions in human poverty.
Between 1949 and 1995 it reduced infant mortality from 200 per 1,000
live births to 42 per 1000 live births, and increased life expectancy
at birth from 35 years to 69. Today almost all children go to school
and adult illiteracy, 80% in the 1950s has fallen to 19%. The
incidence of poverty from widespread fell to 9% in the 1980s. Hunger
has been totally eradicated. (1997, 49-50)

By contrast, in India, 53% of children under age four, 60 million,
remain undernourished. Infant mortality is 74 per 1,000 live births,
and there are each year 2.2 million infant deaths, most of them
avoidable. Rural poverty is 39% and urban poverty 30%. Half the
population is still illiterate. Life expectancy is 61, eight years
less than China. (1997, 51-52)

In China, public spending on education is 2.3% of GDP while that on
health is 2.1% of GDP. The outcomes for human development are clear.
Literacy stands at 84%, infant mortality rates at 32 per 1,000 lives
birth and under-five mortality rates at 40 per 1,000 live births.
(2003, 73)

Proportional to population, China spends three times as much as India
on health care. In India health spending stands at 1.3% of GDP.
(central and state governments combined) Human development indicators
remain much lower for India than for China. Literacy stands at 65%,
infant mortality at 68 per 1,000 live births, and under five mortality
rates at 96 per 1,000 live births. (2003, 73)

If India provided the same health care as China, every year 1.7
million children could be saved. (1998, 156-157 and 176-177)

CUBA

In Cuba, there is one medical doctor for 170 people. In the rest of
Latin America, the proportion is of one doctor for 613 people. Cuba
spends per inhabitant twice as much on health care and education than
the rest of Latin America. (2003, 255)

Cuba's per capita income is a small fraction of that of the USA, yet
it has the same infant mortality rate and has kept HIV/AIDS under
control. (2003, 87)

If the rest of Latin America invested as much as Cuba on health care,
every year 400,000 Latin American children could be saved and 20,000
fewer women would die in pregnancy or child birth.

In Latin America, the ten per cent richest people earn 46 times what
the poorest earn. In Cuba the proportion is five times. (2003, 283)

A quarter of Latin Americans have to survive on two dollars a day or
less. In Cuba, less than two per cent do. (2003, 245)

THE FORMER SOVIET BLOC

Evidence shows that countries that abandoned the construction of
socialism and adopted capitalism experienced a massive regression.
Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS experienced the sharpest
increase in poverty in the 1990s, the only other region with worsening
trends in poverty is Sub-Saharan Africa. (2005, 21)

Ukraine fell 17 places and Russia 15 places while Tadjikistan fell 21
places. Russia fell 48 places in world life expectancy ranking from
1990 to 2003. (2005, 22) Life expectancy for men has fallen from 70
in 1990 to 59 today, lower than India. If this remains constant, 40
percent of 15 years old Russians will be dead before they reach 60.
(2005, 26)

Between 2.5 to 3 million people died during the 1992-2001 period. "In
the absence of war, famine or health epidemics, there is no recent
historical precedent for the scale of the loss." (2005, 23)

Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS experienced a dramatic increase
in poverty. The number of people on less than $2 a day there rose from
23 million in 1990 to 93 million in 2001, from 5% to 20%. (2005, 34)

In the countries of the former Soviet Union, transition brought with
it one of the deepest recessions since the Great Depression of the
1930s, and in many case despite positive growth over the last few
years, incomes are still lower than they were 15 years ago. (2005,
34)

Since 1990 real per capita incomes have fallen by more than 10% in
Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Ukraine and by 40% in Georgia, Moldova and
Tajikistan. In Russia, 10 percent of the population live on less than
$2 a day and 25 percent live below the national subsistence level.
(2005, 35)

WHY WE ARE SOCIALISTS

These are the main reasons why we believe that capitalism, as a way of
organizing society and the economy, fails and is not sustainable; and
advocate socialism as a viable alternative and a better way of
organizing the world.

*******

Back copies of The Plough can be accessed at:
http://www.irsm.org/irsp/plough/.

save preference

Comments (31 of 31)

Jump To Comment:

"socialist china"

by Caio Mao

Wed Oct 05, 2005 22:38

Heh, there's a good one!

"For a Market Socialist Republic" is it?

Life Expectancy

by John

Thu Oct 06, 2005 00:40

The following are the figures for male life expectancy in various countries in 1986: Greece 74, Spain 73, Denmark 72, Ireland 72, Italy 74, West Germany 73, Poland 66, Czeckoslovakia 65, Hungary 64, Bulgaria 64. For an early grave, vote socialist.

Not new

by Noticer

This is from the IRSP's email newsletter and is already available on the internet.

Actually existing socialism

by historian

Thu Oct 06, 2005 09:56

No-one could argue that life is pretty shit for most people under capitalism but to argue that the USSR and its imitators or the surviving socialist states like Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam etc are or were great improvements is a fallacy. On a par with arguing that the Nazis got rid of unemployment and built the authbahnen

Response to Not New & Historian - Problems for Socialism

by Michael

Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:08

Re: Not New
Know what your sayin but how many people know of the IRSP and for those that do how many surf their site?

I for one am glad to find this article here.

RE: Historian

I believe that Socialism has rarely if ever been run properly. The problem is that it has ended up in the hands of dictatorships. This does not work. For Socialism to work it must be totally democratic.

The other problem Socialism has, I believe, is that until a large percentatge of the world turns socialist it is hard for individual socialist countries to prosper in a predominant capitalist world.

Are we just animals or can we evolve into something more?

Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:11

For me the problem humanity faces is, relatively, simple. We evolved from animals. Animals live by the law of the jungle - the survival of the fittest. Capitalism works in very much the same way. As a people we have to make a decision. Do we want to remain like animals or do we, finally, want to evolve into something better?

If we do not make this evolutionary leap, we, like many animal species before us, will be made extinct - nuclear holocaust, environmental destruction etc. etc.

I know which way I am betting.

reverse evolution

by Rob

Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:34

So we should be more like ants or bees???

Socialism

Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:40

There are lots of excuses why every socialist revolution has ended in disaster. The simple fact is that they all had common features; one party rule, the destruction of democracy, economic failure, and massive human rights abuses often leading to wholesale slaughter of the population.

These were not mistakes or accidents or historical quirks. They were and are symptoms of systemic failure. Socialism does not work.

Now you can quote lots of statistics to prove that capitalism is pretty nasty for most people as well, but socialism is not the alternative.

History is written by the victors

by Chew 'n Ly

Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:49

The point about Cuba has merit but you have to ask yourself how much of the poverty in Cuba is as a direct result of the blockade?? As for the DPRK, a cursory glance at their political outlook will show clearly that they do not consider themselves Marxist/Socialist/Communist but followers of the "Juce" which, in their opinion (but hardly anyone else on the left) is a higher stage of communism. It seems more like a monarchy than anything remotely socialist.

The fact that the DPRK exploits and starves its people does not mean that the left will endorse a US invasion or embargos that only really impact on the poor working class of North Korea.

As for the capitalist cheerleaders take a look at the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and tell us capitalism works. The richest capitalist country in the world couldn't (wouldn't) evacuate the poor of New Orleans and then asked for relief from other countries to help to deal with the crisis. The quasi governmental Environmental Protection Agency and other groups had highlighted the danger of this tragedy happening and appealed for the levee's to be hightened but there was no money in the state coffers to do so. I even see that Republicans are critising Bush who has, in a pathetic effort to save face, promised to provide finance for victims of the disaster much to the consternation of his money grabbing, tax dodging capitalists.

by Historian

Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:54

The DPRK is socialist on the basis that the economy is completely state owned and collectivised. Likewise Cuba. The very thing that their left wing critics would cite as the basis of their superiority and a reason to defend them against attack.

An interesting article

by Redzer

Thu Oct 06, 2005 13:01

But lacks credibility when he cites socialist China. It's been a long time since China was socialist.

John your life expectancy figures are meaningless.

by very radical catholic with a little beard

Thu Oct 06, 2005 13:51

average life span of a woman born in scotland in 1901 - 48 years.
average life span of a woman born in england in 1901 - 52 years.
years lived at death of British "queen mother"
102 years.

If we look at the figures now, we see that those populations who _have had the option_ to vote for their governments have longer life-expectancies with left regimes. But at end it is not the regime, it is a combination of dietary and climatic factors. The life expectancy in the caucus mountains and certain japanese islands is the highest in the world.
The arrival, development and subsequent fall of dictatorships has not made any difference.
The higher life expectancy enjoyed in mediterranean countries is thought to be connected to diet. the spread of that diet has helped reduce certain causes of early death, but one could argue the fight against tobacco might do that too. At end what is important is "quality of life".
And quality of life is better for the average pensioner "senior citizen" when proper provisions have been made by their state. We can go two ways on this.- you give them more money and better services or you charge them for their nursing homes.
I believe the latter suggestion by Harney was found to breach the law.

historian

by chewbacca

Thu Oct 06, 2005 14:31

Feudal monarchies controlled the state and the resources of their land so you recon that every euopean country was previously communist?

I repeat the DPRK isn't communist

Re: Historian - I "think" Socialism can work - I don't thing Capitalism can

Thu Oct 06, 2005 15:01

In response to your argument:-

"There are lots of excuses why every socialist revolution has ended in disaster. The simple fact is that they all had common features; one party rule, the destruction of democracy, economic failure, and massive human rights abuses often leading to wholesale slaughter of the population.

These were not mistakes or accidents or historical quirks. They were and are symptoms of systemic failure. Socialism does not work."

I think we are agreed that one party rule/the destruction of democracy and massive human rights abuses are integral ingredients as to the historical failure of Socialism. (I think trying to compete against a predominantly capitalist world is another, which you ommited.)

However I think we differ as to the stage of this. You say it is a symptom. I say it is a cause. I do not believe that it is impossible that this cause be removed. If it were not possilbe I would not be a Socialist and would see no point being one much like I see no point in being a Capitalist.

One of the differences between socialism and capitalism, as I see it, is that there is a way of making Socialism work (i.e. the above). I do not see a way of how Capitalism can work however. If the market is allowed rule then of course people (billions) will be hurt. The market does not have feelings Profit maximization does not have feelings. Competition does not have feelings. Etc.

Hence I am a Socialist (at least for now).

Tell me

by Jim

Thu Oct 06, 2005 15:35

"I think we are agreed that one party rule/the destruction of democracy and massive human rights abuses are integral ingredients as to the historical failure of Socialism. (I think trying to compete against a predominantly capitalist world is another, which you ommited.)

However I think we differ as to the stage of this. You say it is a symptom. I say it is a cause. I do not believe that it is impossible that this cause be removed. If it were not possilbe I would not be a Socialist and would see no point being one much like I see no point in being a Capitalist."

Ok tell me how it is possible with out becoming like the DPRK?

Evidence

Thu Oct 06, 2005 16:21

I'm afraid the evidence of history over a large propostion of the earth, and over many different cultures and levels of development, is that socialist revolution inevitably leads to one party states and all the nastiness that flows from that. There is also persuasive evidence to indicate that once you eliminate private ownership (and I'm not referring to nationalising banks and major corporations) then you eliminate a critical counter-point to the state, apart altogether from leading to economic disaster. Much as I agree with the analysis of capitalism as being inimical to the interests and lives of most people, I cannot see how socialism - with an even worse record in terms of death and misery - offers any alternative.

But ...

by Joe

Thu Oct 06, 2005 16:31

Not all version of socialism are state centered and indeed anarchism (which is not) predicted the way the so called 'state socialist' states would develop into dictatorships. These extracts are from an anarchist essay written in 1872

"All work to be performed in the employ and pay of the State--such is the fundamental principle of Authoritarian Communism, of State Socialism. The State having become sole proprietor--at the end of a certain period of transition which will be necessary to let society pass without too great political and economic shocks from the present organisation of bourgeois privilege to the future organisation of the official equality of all--the State will be also the only Capitalist, banker, money-lender, organiser, director of all national labour and distributor of its products. Such is the ideal, the fundamental principle of modern Communism.

...

But in the People's State of Marx, there will be, we are told, no privileged class at all. All will be equal, not only from the juridical and political point of view, but from the economic point of view. At least that is what is promised, though I doubt very much, considering the manner in which it is being tackled and the course it is desired to follow, whether that promise could ever be kept. There will therefore be no longer any privileged class, but there will be a government and, note this well, an extremely complex government, which will not content itself with governing and administering the masses politically, as all governments do to-day, but which will also administer them economically, concentrating in its own hands the production and the just division of wealth, the cultivation of land, the establishment and development of factories, the organisation and direction of commerce, finally the application of capital to production by the only banker, the State. All that will demand an immense knowledge and many "heads overflowing with brains" in this government. It will be the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant and contemptuous of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of real and pretended scientists and scholars, and the world will be divided into a minority ruling in the name of knowledge and an immense ignorant majority.And then, woe betide the mass of ignorant ones!

Such a regime will not fail to arouse very considerable discontent in this mass and in order to keep it in check the enlightenment and liberating government of Marx will have need of a not less considerable armed force. For the government must be strong, says Engels, to maintain order among these millions of illiterates whose brutal uprising would be capable of destroying and overthrowing everything, even a government directed by heads overflowing with brains.

You can see quite well that behind all the democratic and socialistic phrases and promises of Marx's programme, there is to be found in his State all that constitutes the true despotic and brutal nature of all States, whatever may be the form of their government and that in the final reckoning, the People's State so strongly commended by Marx, and the aristocratic-monarchic State, maintained with as much cleverness as power by Bismarck, are completely identical by the nature of their objective at home as well as in foreign affairs. In foreign affairs it is the same deployment of military force, that is to say, conquest; and in home affairs it is the same employment of this armed force, the last argument of all threatened political powers against the masses, who, tired of believing, hoping, submitting and obeying always, rise in revolt."

Not all types of communism seek control of the state - some including anarchism see the destruction of the state is necessary in order to create communism.

by s - swp

Thu Oct 06, 2005 17:43

In many ways this is a very relavent article and in others is outdated.
socialism=state control.This is simpy not true. There are many states which have state control or some state control. This doesnt mean that they are part socialist or fuly socialist. In state capitalist countries like the USSR, china, cuba the capitalist laws of value and motion were still in effect. It was capitalism at its worst. Centralised capital in the hands of a few athouritarians.
socialism=no private property. Again this is a miss reading of Marx. A socialist rervoultion is about the illimanation of bourgeois property. Bourgeois property is the sum total of all the relation of production ie capitalism. Therefore its the replacement of bourgeois property with socialist property.
socialism= dictatorship. No one who calls themselves a socialist can support a dictatorship. Socialism means more democracy not less. Its about workers control and democracy
Indeed there is no a priori way of dealing with this but if the emacipation of the working class is the act of the working class then we must understand that simp[ly imposing state control ie eastern europe is not socialist.

Thu Oct 06, 2005 17:50

It is quite true that a benign climate and ready availability of fresh fruits and vegetables can increase average life expectancy in a country. That's one of the reasons why life expectancy in Spain, Italy and Greece is higher than in the Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium, although the latter are richer. However, those countries in eastern Europe that experienced socialism/communism after World War 2 had far lower life expectancies by the 1980s than their immediate neighbours in the West, even when the latter had almost identical climates and diets. Thus, by the 1980s life expectancy in Bulgaria was almost 10 years lower than in neighbouring Greece, although they have identical climates and diets. Likewise, by the 1980s life expectancy in Hungary was almost 8 years lower than in neighbouring Austria, although again they have identical climates and similar diets. And again by the 1980s life expectancy in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was 4 or 5 years lower than in neighbouring Finland, although again they have identical climates and similar diets. So something other than climate or diet must have been at work in those socialist/communist countries to keep their life expectancies so far below those in the neighbouring capitalist countries. That 'something' was socialism. Still, every cloud has a silver lining. So, if you ensure these facts are properly publicised, you could get a strong socilaist vote among undertakers and coffin manufacturers at the next election. Not sure why you bring up the Queen Mother's longevity. The Queen Mother's husband died rather young, which rather detracts from the point you are trying to make.

Brief responses to Historian, Jim & S

Thu Oct 06, 2005 17:59

Feck all time due to capitalist time constraints!, but would be interested in continuing the debate:-

RE: HISTORIAN

Your argument:- "Much as I agree with the analysis of capitalism as being inimical to the interests and lives of most people, I cannot see how socialism - with an even worse record in terms of death and misery - offers any alternative."

Do you see any alternative to Capitalism or are we simply a doomed race?

RE: JIM

Your question that how is it possible to implement democracy within socialism without becoming like the DPRK? (I assume that is what you are asking?)

Dont know a huge amount about the DPRK. Will try to get back to you on that one.

Perhaps someone else might put forward an answer in the meantime?

RE: S

Your argument:-
"Socialism means more democracy not less."

Agreed that ideally and theoretically this is what it means - but do you not have to agree with Historian that all attempts at Socialism throughout history have ended up in oppressive, brutal Dictatorships? Some less oppressive than others - but all with dictatorships and a supression of democracy?

by s

Thu Oct 06, 2005 18:17

michael- reply. By attempts i pressume you mean cuba vietnam russia etc. In vietnam etc what they were attemptin was a replica os the the soviet union and were usually funded supported and even controoled by the imperialist intentions os the USSR. In russia itself there was infact democracy. It was actually the most democratic country of its time. Soviets (workers councils) controlled the country. Each soviet elected delgates and unlike parliment delegates could be recalled at any time. thats just a few examples of the democracy of the workers state at the time.
Of course we all know that stalin rose to power and became one of the most monstrous dictators of all time. this cannot be explained without using marxist methods. In Russia before the rev the working class was weak. After the civil war in which 23 capitalist countries invaded the country the working class, who were at the fore front of the fighting was laregely destroyed. Therefore there was know chance of workers democracy. The party took over and in short stalin and the new rulling class rose.
The demise of theworkers state lay in the in the failure of revolutions in across the world (ie germany and hungary)
Had these revoutions suceeded the small russian working class would not have been so isolated. Hiostory may have been a different story. Socialism was to be forever associated with stalinism.
With the collapse of the berlin wall, socialists could start dealing with some unfinished buisness. The creation of a truly equal society

Theres no difference between a traditional communist or anarchist revolution

Thu Oct 06, 2005 18:58

We are agreed then that the party inspired revolution always results in collapse because the resulting state is a monlithic dictatorship?
Why would an anarchist revolution be any different?
Presumably people are different with different aims. If each person acted individually then each would run into conflict with the rest of the 7 Billion people in the world who would not agree? Therefore they would have to make compromises and organise themselves behind a platform they could agree on?
But competing platforms would be too fractured therefore they would form political parties.
Of course we have just decided that one party rule would not work.
So there would have to be competing political parties.
Who would be in power?
Would there have to be a civil war?
With the risk that there would be one party rule after the war or that society would be so fractured by conflict that once again new parties would have to be formed to fight one another again and again forever?
Why not have each party field representatives to the people so that they can decide who can have a seat in parliament?
Instead of a single party fighting everybody and everybody fighting everyone else or groups of parties fighting one another instead groups of parties would meet and decided how the people who elected them would be governed?
Obviously the largest party or group of parties would be entitled to rule since their representatives would reflect the majority of voters?
An if the people decided they were not being ruled as they see fit they would vote new representatives or parties to the seat of government?

Some replies

Fri Oct 07, 2005 10:02

Interesting debate and - wonder of wonders! - an absence of sectarian wrangling!

Michael - I sincerely hope that there is an alternative to the dominant economic system that exists at the moment. That is why efforts to ameliorate it/change it/overthrow it are worthwhile. However, any revolution that takes as it's model previous marxist/leninist templates will inevitably lead to the same sort of horrors as before. That is far more predictable than any other 'law' of history!

s - I'm afraid I do not buy into the myth that everything was fine in the USSR until nasty old Stalin came to power in 1925. You refer to Soviet democracy whereas in fact the Bolsheviks had already ignored soviet democracy when it suited them, and begun repressing leftist critics and rivals by 1918.

The anarchist critique is compelling - but so too is that of critics on the right - regarding the evils of statism. Social change based on bottom up democratic control and accountability is attractive but not sure how practical. It also offers an interesting alternative to centralised economic planning and can have scope for individual ownership of small firms as well as co-operatives.

Re: Historian - Have Socialists really learned from past mistakes?

by Michal

Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:21

Yes a welcome reprieve from sectarian wrangling indeed. A lot of people, from all sides, seem to have lost the art of respect. Once this folds all else, including all initially good things, can quickly fold as well.

So do you care to throw your hat into the ring then and suggest a possible alternative economic/political system? Or at present, what do you see as the best alternative? Or maybe you just do not see an alternative at present as you seem to be suggesting?

Though I consider myself a socialist I share your apprehensions about Socialism - though we differ in that I "think" they can "probably" be overcome. What adds to my apprehensions is that most Socialists (and maybe I am one of them!) seem to largely ignore the past. Make excuses for it. Do not completely put theire hands up in the air and say that a lot of past Socialist systems were an outrage and a shambolic failure. I question how much current day socialists have really learned from the past. But I do believe, at present anyhow, that if we have truly learned, the next Socialist system can be made a success.

How?

Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:55

First of all you will have to political support from ordianry people.
Communist parties and anarchists have zilch representation in Europe.
People have voted consistently for mainstream left or right wing parties for decades even though the anarchist or communist alternative exist.
Thats not because of a vast conspiracy it is just that your ideas are completely unattractive to the vast majority of people.
The game is up so move on with your lives.

Michael

Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:00

I wouldn't be optimistic and I accept that a lot of the bottom up projects are only a drop in the ocean. What is happening in Venezuela is also interesting but both are confronted with the reality of the massive power of global capitalism. So the question is can a local co-operative or group of co-ops, or even an individual state make any real difference? Possibly not but one thing is for sure and that is that there is nothing to be gained by trusting in the old notions of vanguard led revolutions and the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Jim - How?

Fri Oct 07, 2005 14:23

Jim,

Before I try to answer How? - Will you just clarify exactly - How What ?

What i mean

Fri Oct 07, 2005 15:37

The vast majority of voters in Ireland & Europe vote for mainstream democratic political parties for years even though the alternative of socialist, communist and anarchist exist.
So if socialism is ever to be successful then surely you need to get their support?
But based on the track record over decades of indifference among the vast majority of ordinary people toward socialism then it means that socialism by its very nature lacks an appeal whatsoever

Oversimplified Analysis, Jim

by Shipsea

Fri Oct 07, 2005 17:55

Socialism has has from its inception been demonised and proactively discredited by coprorate interests. It has never enjoyed the same economic or political backing because capitalism was prior and very much ready to stamp it out wherever it could. By and large it is a political theory that has to be proactively sought out, studied and consciously embraced to be voted for. A significant number of voters (probably a majority) make no effort of this kind, and unquestioningly accept the status quo. Your claim that socialism has been consciously 'rejected' , therefore isnt exactly true. Moreover, you leave out the very significant number of people who do not vote - very often a majority of the registered electorate - in local and national elections. As between socialism and capitalism, its not an even playing field at all. No yet, anyway!

Thats my whole point!

Sat Oct 08, 2005 14:11

Whether its indifference or ignorance, that group of people will still be far more aware of the capitalist system they live in. They will not have the same degree of knowledge about socialism because it isnt in the model surrounding them. It might be argued that their indifference could be converted to active participation if they were more aware of the principles of socialism. In any event, their indifference is in no sense a choice when its a choice they dont know they are making. So your earlier assertion that elections have somehow proved that people have rejected socialism dont really stand up for a number of reasons. As to chosing between a lecture on socialism and listening to an ipod stuffed with all your favourite music...that's another thing altogether!

John

by Geoff

Tue Oct 11, 2005 20:31

"The following are the figures for male life expectancy in various countries in 1986: Greece 74, Spain 73, Denmark 72, Ireland 72, Italy 74, West Germany 73, Poland 66, Czeckoslovakia 65, Hungary 64, Bulgaria 64. For an early grave, vote socialist"

I love you, man!

For more beuracracy, stifflement of choice, etc, yes, vote socialist. Certainly some state intervention can be a good thing, i.e. Health, education, and the like. However, in a socialist sytem, you would not have the option to get private health insurance.

While capitalism has the science of economics to back it up, socialism never quite achieved the all rounded theoretical framework. While capitalism has actual science behind it, socialism delves into self serving theoretical gobblydegook espoused by the likes of Gramsci and, later on, college professors with well paying jobs who perpetuate more gobblydegook.

Of course, the emergence of a free market freee for all, a la Chile, Midddle East principalities and no swearing, no chewing gum boredoms like Singapore, is rather horrible. It is nice to nice, and that is why that even though there will always be need for improvements, Ireland is quite ok actually.

Maybe France has faster health care, or workers in the Netherlands get more holidays than we do, but unemployment in these places is much higher, as is taxation. Yeah, we have stealth tax, but you'll still save money faster here than in Hollland, especially on the paltry wages I got.

Socialism seems to rely too much on the concept of being owed a living rather than getting one togeter for oneself. Socialism is an idea for weaklings, the concept comes from a time when people were being crushed by tthe industrial revolution. Things have moved on, socialism is going nowhere and all it can do now is find problems and feed off them in order to sustain its raison d'etre.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Capitalism and Socialism

Comments (31 of 31)