[Hagetaka]

"The Evolution of Socialism in a Capitalistic Climate"

There is a common misperception ravaging the modern minds of young and old alike; specifically, that socialism, communism, and Marxism are perfect in form as dictated by Karl Marx. That socialism is inherently good, and that capitalism is inherently evil. These assertions lay on the ideological pretension that Marx's work, the "Communist Manifesto," is infallible. This however, cannot be farther from the truth. Karl Marx's and Friedrich Engel's paramount is obsolete, in the most lighthearted of truths.

Marx states that there are "two great hostile camps" and that these "great classes (are) directly facing each other - (the) bourgeoisie and (the) proletariat" (Marx, 1); daftly labeled, the "oppressor and the oppressed" (Marx, 1). To remain completely clear, Marx defines the bourgeoisie as "the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labor" and the proletariat as "the class of modern wage laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live" (Marx, 1). Furthermore, he states that the proletariat is "like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market" (Marx, 1). Some of these truths remain difficult to deny. Yes, in capitalism, one is bound to the fluctuations of the free market, ever apparent during America's Great Depression. And yes, in capitalism, one is most often bound to the trade of their labor for a "callous cash payment" as means for survival. Yet to go as far as labeling this as oppression, is substantially inaccurate.

However, regardless of it's inaccuracies, consider this. Socialism, in its pure form, does not exist. Today, it survives only in parliamentary governments (such is the case in the UK, Germany, and many more various countries) as the political majority labeled as "social democracy." Now, before continuing, it is important to understand that capitalism and democracy are finely tuned to each other. One does not usually exist without the other. America, while some may argue the merit of its "democracy," is a prime example of this trend. And why? Simply because both cater to an individuals right to be an individual. That being that everyone has the right to live, buy, sell, own, and be free in general.

Marx states in the "Communist Manifesto" that capitalism is the precursor to socialism; transitioning then, to communism. This is where capitalism's relevance to democracy begins to become of importance. Most social democrats believe in a "Social Market Economy" or a "Mixed Economy." Though, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, much of the centre right has shifted towards neo-liberalism (a subtle capitalist movement). While the centre left, has progressed towards the "Third Way" (still favoring socialistic ideals, but embracing more free trade). (Wikipedia, 2) So is socialism ceding to capitalism? Or is capitalism regressing into socialism? The line remains muddled, at best. However, take heed of the United State's previous and ongoing reactions to communist and socialist states. The USSR serves at an excellent model to these actions.

The USSR existed for many years under an imperialistic communist rule. Shortly after the political standoff between America and the USSR, and the economic collapse that ensued, the United State's political parties then saw to the interjection of a President for these people. Introducing western democracy through imposition; though, America and Russia currently do not see eye to eye on an economic basis (with Russia favoring a market economy and to some extent, a planned economy). And the key to all of this; "Russia now occupies one of the central positions in President Bush's European agenda." (Bendersky, 3)

This has become a popular trend. Iraq, Iran, Germany, and others have fallen under America's political guidance. So what has become of the evolution of socialism? American imposition of western democracy is seeing to its decay. It is true; capitalism is the bane of socialism. And rightly so. It's policies are vastly outdated. Since the Industrial Revolution, much has changed. There has been a reversal of Marx's implications hoisted upon the bourgeois. Such as the devastation of the artisan; specialized skills such as produced by such an artisan, are highly sought after. Also, labor laws are now in place. No longer can the "exploitation of children by their parents" (Marx, 1) become a reality (referring to the dismal times when children worked in factories, to make ends meet). And women are no longer simply cheap labor. Because indeed, we all have the right to live, buy, sell, own, and be free; to be an individual.




***Author's Note: Ive been out of school for a long time, and my MLA is a bit rusty, so my citing is completely off. (Marx, 1) refers to a quote from the communist manifesto. And (Wikipedia, 2) refers to a the wikipedia.org as listed for #2.. etc.

[Evrviglnt]

Well written. Simply put, only a country that is free can utilize capitalism because the relationship between buyer and seller must be unobstructed. Government control of the economy means less choice, less product and rampant inefficiency because of the planners inability to react to market forces. To think that planners can control market forces is about as realistic as believing that planners can control the economic decisions of every one of its citizens. It is this belief, and the pursuit of central planning that socialist economies have needed communist governments willing to subjugate their people to such an extent that the choices made are the only ones the government allows.

Lowering the expectations of a people until they are at the standard the government is able to perform at results in an economy that boasts mediocrity as its reward. That is why socialism/communism has nothing to do with freedom, it's goals are antithetical to freedom, and threatening to individualism.

[moggzy]

Socialism and communism deal primarily with one overriding factor: utopia for all, the smoke and mirrors goal for any ideological humanitarian movement.

Whether that utopia is control or freedom is any ones guess. It is either a lesson in futility or it is a semantic argument!!!

Regardless of personal opinion, every state/major organizational influence on main stream society is geared around power to control, manipulate or simply ensure superior stature over our peers. The continuation of this social standing will always take precedence over any pre-ordained ideological theory or law.

(If major players break law: look the other way!!! It has always been that way, but it will change as we grow as a species)

Remember people: We are not there yet, we will be one day, just not today!!


IMO: the major lesson for human beings today, living in the "MODERN WORLD" is a better understanding society and of who we are in a world with easily attained information and education.

While we have border lines on a map / a religious influence that governs / families or communities that close us off to all of our surroundings, we as a race will never truly be free.

This world is not about any single person, creature, plant, gas or mineral. It is about progression

(A true optimist; One who truly believes in the progression of man or beast from generation to generation)

[moggzy]

I did rate this a lot higher than shown, it just hasn't come out that way.

Content : 4.0
Structure: 3.0
Argument: 2.0
Mechanics: 3.0

A good piece to start a debate.

[Hagetaka]

To be honest, I wrote this rather haphazardly as a result of my studies into communism and socialism after a debate sparked between ColinBaker, and myself. I wrote the first two paragraphs, set it off for a while, and then came back to it. Thank you for reading, as well as amending your insights; much appreciated.

This is an awful, ill-informed and terribly biased piece of writing that shows a complete lack of understanding of socialism/communism which you attempt to destroy with an dogmatic, abstract and, frankly, inaccurate argument for capitalism.

Your understanding of the USSR shows little more than the cold-war rhetoric that was thrust upon people as a way of stifling any discussion about the system of common ownership and planned economy. In many left-wing circles, the USSR is referred to, perhaps apologetically, as 'Stalinist Imperialist'. Most of those who would profess to be socialist would explicitly criticise the USSR model. This is due to the fact that it eschewed the fundamental requisites Marx stipulated for a workers state - that there should be a democratic planned economy and, therefore, no bureaucratic structure which produces a class with its own interests. In Russia this happened very quickly from the outset, with the high political classes and an emerging nomenklatura (powerful bureaucratic classes) having their own vested interests, which attributed massively to the economic inefficiency and decline. You do not refer to any other countries which attempted socialist systems. Yugoslavia, before the sectarianism and bloody separatism which followed Tito is one example and Cuba another.

Equally you show a blatant neglect for actual socialist/communist thinking. You begin on the premise that all of such ideology is predicated from a Marxist perspective. This is patently untrue: there were socialists before Marx and there certainly followed many after him who disagreed with many of his revolutionary theories. The importance of Marx is that he presented in a unified, critical theory how socialism could surpass the emotional and philosophical ideas that had abounded up until that time. (His followers describe Marx's theory as 'scientific', based on his economic studies, although both the fact that many of his predictions have been proven wrong in time and that his 'science' hardly objective and grounded in rooted philosophical assumptions, would not lend to such a denotation). There are myriad strands of socialist revolutionary, communist, social democratic, reformists and revolutionary views and movements which you have failed entirely to even mention, other than a reference to 'social market' and 'the third way'. This latter, certainly as we have seen in Britain, is nothing other than a term of political rhetoric which describes mitigating the most harsh elements of an absolute free market and retaining some publicly provided services (although doing so through private involvement and finance).

It would appear that you have a very poor knowledge and critical understanding of contemporary politics. Iran under the political influence of the US? Perhaps thirty years ago when they installed the Shah, but a child would know that Iran is a 'rogue state' which is counted amongst America's enemies. The way you constantly refer to capitalism, as if it is one, homogeneous system which is of the same complexion in every country, which is quite untrue. Whilst all capitalists systems undeniably work on the same basis - the free movement of capital as a means of economic production, distribution and investment - they may differ vastly, whether this be due to their political constitution, government involvement and regulation of markets, public provision of services and social and cultural traits which can have massive effects on markets.

Your assertions that labour laws remove and prohibit exploitation are risible. Whilst we may have some degree of protection in the Western world, the working classes are severely curtailed in their legal rights to organise and act against their employees. Equally, such basic labour laws (which are enshrined as human rights in the ICCPR and other UN documents) simply do not exist in developing countries. You complain against your boss if you work in a sweat shop in China and do you think he will let you make a grievance with a Union rep by your side?

And lastly, your (perhaps unknowing) evocation of the theory of the freedom of contract, the philosophical and economic theory upon which capitalism lies, fails in any way to appreciate that such thinking is not only antiquated and abstract, but that it is a fiction. The idea of being able to sell your labour to another boss holds some degree of truth, but when there is an enormous disparity in economic bargaining power, this idea withers.

I suggest you do more research before writing more political discourse.