Economic organization & societal systems

[FrogMom5]

The purpose of this thread is to help prepare for teaching history and American govt. to dc this yr. and it's a spin off of the 3 Generations thread. Credit goes to Dialectica for the title of this thread. Thanks!

 

One of the thoughts that struck me is that no system is pure. Am I right that they are all a mix of some kind? For instance, in the U.S. we are a democracy and we operate under a capitalist economic system but we do practice some socialism too. It seems that we need to do this to offset the flaws in the capitalist system. The communist system seems to always be a bit mixed too. Is this correct?

 

Also, can a country have a communist system and have a democracy? It seems to me that communism, while the intended goals seem worthy, always necessitates a dictatorship. I use Cuba, China, U.S.S.R., N. Korea and Venezuala as examples.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. I want this to be a thoughtful discussion about the various systems, how they work, how they don't work and the interplay between it all. I know I've mixed economic systems and government systems but you really have to have both. So, how do you mix them? And, can any of them ever be in their pure form?

 

Can't wait to hear from you all.

Denise

Edited August 2, 2011 by FrogMom5

[Hunter]

This is all a bit too advanced for me right now, but back when I had a brain, my younger son did a "create your own country" project and spent quite a bit of time studying different forms of government and eventually picked communism. At first I flipped out, but he spoon fed me some information and I eventually calmed down and learned to think a little wider than I had been taught during my schooling.

 

http://www.wikihow.com/Start-Your-Own-Country

 

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/How-Build-Your-Country-CitizenKid/dp/1554533104

[9763653]

Another topic worthy of study is post-communist transition. We are currently living in a country that had a very rough transition away from communism, including wars, economic crises (hyper inflation, for one), a lot of corruption, and an assassinated prime minister.

 

For many, the transition has been very hard. This has, in turn, led to many "nostalgia" groups forming, as well as many pro-western extremists. It has been 20 years now, and the effects of communism are felt in every state institution and in peoples' mentalities. Democracy is not quite there either, not just yet.

[angela in ohio]

The U.S. isn't actually a democracy. It's a federal republic, democratic republic, federal Constitutional republic, etc. - depending on who you ask - but definitely a republic.

 

Socialism doesn't do anything for capitalism except create flaws in it, imho. ;) You will want to read more about this to decide what "school" you are in, though. The U.S. has moved from a market/capitalist economy to a mixed economy.

 

We read a lot of communism material in college in my Great Books course. The idea is that you first centralize power (that's where you are seeing the dictator) and then eventually that power is turned over to the people. it's that last step that appears to be tricky. ;) :D

[9763653]

Also, can a country have a communist system and have a democracy? It seems to me that communism, while the intended goals seem worthy, always necessitates a dictatorship.

Denise

 

Of course, dictatorship ("of the proletariat") is seen as a necessity by classic Marxists-Leninists during the transition toward socialism. It is seen as a dictatorship imposed by the majority on the minority, the former bourgeoisie, in communist literature.

 

I don't know about the other countries you mention (especially Venezuela, do they actually identify as "communist"?), but certainly N Korea differs from that classical view, and does not work toward a stateless system as mentioned by Engels, for instance. They (if you read works by Kim Il-sung) do not think this attainable.

 

It would be interesting to discuss how this "dictatorship of the proletariat" actually impacts the working class in such systems. Discussing civil liberties under communism would be great too.

 

On that - over here, there are not many civil liberties, and anything that deviates from the norm is quickly condemned if not by law, than by society. One very good example of this is homeschooling. It is not legal, which comes from the communist period during which controlling children as they grew up was essential to the system.

[9763653]

We read a lot of communism material in college in my Great Books course. The idea is that you first centralize power (that's where you are seeing the dictator) and then eventually that power is turned over to the people. it's that last step that appears to be tricky. ;) :D

 

Technically, the people should have power even during that first stage. The people should elect their representatives, who are supposed to be truly accountable and can be removed from power at any time. It is when a classless system is established that this kind of dictatorship becomes obsolete. But "the people" (interesting concept!) should hold power at any time.

[FrogMom5]

Another topic worthy of study is post-communist transition. We are currently living in a country that had a very rough transition away from communism, including wars, economic crises (hyper inflation, for one), a lot of corruption, and an assassinated prime minister.

 

For many, the transition has been very hard. This has, in turn, led to many "nostalgia" groups forming, as well as many pro-western extremists. It has been 20 years now, and the effects of communism are felt in every state institution and in peoples' mentalities. Democracy is not quite there either, not just yet.

 

Why has it been so difficult? Is part of it that people are changing to something unknown to them and so they don't understand how or what to do? For example, I grew up in the military. In the military everyone of the same rank has the same kind of house, same pay and so on. The environment is highly structured and you don't deviate. When I was getting ready for college, my parents really couldn't tell me about how the outside world worked. They told me to major in business but couldn't explain what you do in business. They had no idea how to apply for a job, outside of the civil service or military. It was because they had spent their adult lives in one environment that differs so much from the one I was about to enter. Is that the reason the change has been so difficult? Or, are there other factors?

Denise

[FrogMom5]

The U.S. isn't actually a democracy. It's a federal republic, democratic republic, federal Constitutional republic, etc. - depending on who you ask - but definitely a republic.

 

Socialism doesn't do anything for capitalism except create flaws in it, imho. ;) You will want to read more about this to decide what "school" you are in, though. The U.S. has moved from a market/capitalist economy to a mixed economy.

 

We read a lot of communism material in college in my Great Books course. The idea is that you first centralize power (that's where you are seeing the dictator) and then eventually that power is turned over to the people. it's that last step that appears to be tricky. ;) :D

 

Yes, I've heard this, the bolded part, many times but I don't understand what it means. What is a Republic and how does it differ from a democracy? I think I understand that we don't have a true democracy but we do have a form of it, right?

 

I do want to read more about economics. Every economic system has flaws and capitalism is no exception. I would never argue for the U.S. to become more socialistic, though. History does not show socialism as a good way for a people to prosper. How does limited socialism hurt capitalism? And, what do you do about the externalities (usually people) inherent in a free market system? I guess I consider safety nets a type of socialism - social security payments (including disability), welfare, medicare and medicaide. Are there ways to provide safety nets that aren't socialistic?

Thanks.

Denise

[9763653]

Yes, I've heard this, the bolded part, many times but I don't understand what it means. What is a Republic and how does it differ from a democracy? I think I understand that we don't have a true democracy but we do have a form of it, right?

 

I do want to read more about economics. Every economic system has flaws and capitalism is no exception. I would never argue for the U.S. to become more socialistic, though. History does not show socialism as a good way for a people to prosper. How does limited socialism hurt capitalism? And, what do you do about the externalities (usually people) inherent in a free market system? I guess I consider safety nets a type of socialism - social security payments (including disability), welfare, medicare and medicaide. Are there ways to provide safety nets that aren't socialistic?

Thanks.

Denise

 

What is limited socialism? Capitalism with a highly centralized, repressive government that calls itself socialist (like in China)? Or Capitalism with a healthcare and welfare available (like in the UK)? :001_smile:

 

Sorry, it's past 1 am here. I'll give you some saner thoughts on transition tomorrow.

[FrogMom5]

What is limited socialism? Capitalism with a highly centralized, repressive government that calls itself socialist (like in China)? Or Capitalism with a healthcare and welfare available (like in the UK)? :001_smile:

 

Sorry, it's past 1 am here. I'll give you some saner thoughts on transition tomorrow.

 

Oh, that's my term, limited socialism. By that I do mean welfare and healthcare programs, like the U.K.

Sorry for the confusion. Get some sleep and we'll talk more later.

Denise

[FrogMom5]

Of course, dictatorship ("of the proletariat") is seen as a necessity by classic Marxists-Leninists during the transition toward socialism. It is seen as a dictatorship imposed by the majority on the minority, the former bourgeoisie, in communist literature.

 

I don't know about the other countries you mention (especially Venezuela, do they actually identify as "communist"?), but certainly N Korea differs from that classical view, and does not work toward a stateless system as mentioned by Engels, for instance. They (if you read works by Kim Il-sung) do not think this attainable.

 

It would be interesting to discuss how this "dictatorship of the proletariat" actually impacts the working class in such systems. Discussing civil liberties under communism would be great too.

 

On that - over here, there are not many civil liberties, and anything that deviates from the norm is quickly condemned if not by law, than by society. One very good example of this is homeschooling. It is not legal, which comes from the communist period during which controlling children as they grew up was essential to the system.

 

Can a communist system allow for civil liberties? You said that what is not condemned by the govt. is often condemned by society. Is that because it is so ingrained in the people to not deviate? If that is the case, that is a powerful tool for the hierarchy.

 

So, if a dictatorship is necessary when a communist regime is instituted, do they simply swap one set of "bourgeoisie" for another? One set of elites for a new set?

 

It is my understanding that the vision of Marx and Engles was that all people are equal in what they have, they work for the common good and thereby live a good life. That doesn't seem to be the reality though. It seems that it ends up being a 2-tiered society with the elites living a lavish life and the masses living in poverty. Is that true or just my western perception? Can everyone really be equal?

 

It seems that some of the very things Marx and Engles criticized other systems for is played out again in the communist system, sometimes magnified. But then, human behavior factors in and messes things up. Things like greed, jealousy, pride and so on. Those things cause problems in the capitalist system too.

 

Do you think any country can acheive a stateless system as envisioned by Engles? Is this really possible? And would it really be a good thing? I just can't picture what that would look like. But, I'm looking through a western lens.

 

I included Venezuela because when Hugo Chavez was elected, he then established his dictatorship, shut down the media, clamped down on freedom of speech and press, regulated who came and went from the country and instituted price controls. He may just be borrowing some communist style policies to establish and maintain control and not truly be a communist. I don't know.

Denise

Edited August 3, 2011 by FrogMom5

[regentrude]

Having lived in a socialist/communist country for 23 years (and having been forced to read and study this stuff a whole lot), here are a couple of thoughts:

 

A communist society will be so dysfunctional that it requires a dictator to force the people to stay there and adhere to the rules.

The reason it can not work is found in human nature. The basic idea of communism, namely that everybody will work to the best of their abilities and everybody will receive according to their needs sounds great on paper - and it does not work because the majority of people will NOT work to the best of their abilities unless given an incentive. Some idealistic people do, regardless of rewards, but most people will not if they were equally well off without. Greed and jealousy are human nature, and capitalism harnesses these things and turns them into motivators. In a communist system, economy inevitably deteriorates in the absence of motivation.

The idea to remedy this is that it just takes "education" to grow the kind of personality with whom to make communism - that is why the former eastern block countries were aware that true communism had not yet been achieved. Alas, it won't work.

 

You asked about civil liberties: in a fundamentally dysfunctional system, there can be no civil liberties such as freedom of speech. If people started openly discussing and criticizing, the system would break down unless enforced by military power - which is exactly what happened with the revolution leading to the fall of the Wall in 1989: as soon as the Soviets declined to send the army to crush peaceful demonstrators, the system was finished.

 

There are, if you want, socialist elements in capitalist societies. They stem from both moral obligations towards fellow humans (for example, letting disabled people starve because they can not work is not considered moral), and from a pragmatic desire to stabilize society (unemployed masses close to starvation are dangerous). A fully capitalist only society is probably more prone to unrest than a society which creates some kind of safety nets for the disabled and unemployed.

 

On the topic of post-communist societies:

I think a lot of the developments has to do with the country's tradition prior to the onset of communism. A country with a democratic history and tradition will transition easier into a western democracy than a country which, pre-communist revolution, was a feudal system with no democratic traditions. I believe some of the problems that plague Russia may be attributed to this.

[9763653]

Can a communist system allow for civil liberties? You said that what is not condemned by the govt. is often condemned by society. Is that because it is so ingrained in the people to not deviate? If that is the case, that is a powerful tool for the hierarchy.

 

It is, I believe, because of a human tendency to gossip and to want to feel better than others. Fear is a big part of these societies - and it is mostly fear that a neighbor will snitch you up, not that the authorities will find out in some other way. Going to church, for instance, was not illegal but believers went to great lengths to hide their church attendance from their neighbors.

 

 

So, if a dictatorship is necessary when a communist regime is instituted, do they simply swap one set of "bourgeoisie" for another? One set of elites for a new set?

 

It is my understanding that the vision of Marx and Engles was that all people are equal in what they have, they work for the common good and thereby live a good life. That doesn't seem to be the reality though. It seems that it ends up being a 2-tiered society with the elites living a lavish life and the masses living in poverty. Is that true or just my western perception? Can everyone really be equal?

 

It seems that some of the very things Marx and Engles criticized other systems for is played out again in the communist system, sometimes magnified. But then, human behavior factors in and messes things up. Things like greed, jealousy, pride and so on. Those things cause problems in the capitalist system too.

 

That is the heart of the problem with communism, in my opinion. In my experience, a new elite certainly replaces the old dominant class. The dictator himself (only men so far, right?) lives a lavish life, and those who belong to the political elite do, too. Everyone can never be "equal". Humans just don't function like that. What do you think?

 

Greed and corruption also cause problems in a capitalist system, but at least there is the possibility of advancing economically if one works really hard. That lacks in most communist systems, where you move up the ladder through political connections.

 

Do you think any country can acheive a stateless system as envisioned by Engles? Is this really possible? And would it really be a good thing? I just can't picture what that would look like. But, I'm looking through a western lens.

 

No, I don't think that is possible at all. Nobody would be able to know what that would look like, since socialist countries of the past (and present) never even came close to that.

 

I included Venezuela because when Hugo Chavez was elected, he then established his dictatorship, shut down the media, clamped down on freedom of speech and press, regulated who came and went from the country and instituted price controls. He may just be borrowing some communist style policies to establish and maintain control and not truly be a communist. I don't know.

Denise

 

Thanks for your explanation :).

[9763653]

Having lived in a socialist/communist country for 23 years (and having been forced to read and study this stuff a whole lot), here are a couple of thoughts:

 

A communist society will be so dysfunctional that it requires a dictator to force the people to stay there and adhere to the rules.

The reason it can not work is found in human nature. The basic idea of communism, namely that everybody will work to the best of their abilities and everybody will receive according to their needs sounds great on paper - and it does not work because the majority of people will NOT work to the best of their abilities unless given an incentive. Some idealistic people do, regardless of rewards, but most people will not if they were equally well off without. Greed and jealousy are human nature, and capitalism harnesses these things and turns them into motivators. In a communist system, economy inevitably deteriorates in the absence of motivation.

The idea to remedy this is that it just takes "education" to grow the kind of personality with whom to make communism - that is why the former eastern block countries were aware that true communism had not yet been achieved. Alas, it won't work.

 

You asked about civil liberties: in a fundamentally dysfunctional system, there can be no civil liberties such as freedom of speech. If people started openly discussing and criticizing, the system would break down unless enforced by military power - which is exactly what happened with the revolution leading to the fall of the Wall in 1989: as soon as the Soviets declined to send the army to crush peaceful demonstrators, the system was finished.

 

There are, if you want, socialist elements in capitalist societies. They stem from both moral obligations towards fellow humans (for example, letting disabled people starve because they can not work is not considered moral), and from a pragmatic desire to stabilize society (unemployed masses close to starvation are dangerous). A fully capitalist only society is probably more prone to unrest than a society which creates some kind of safety nets for the disabled and unemployed.

 

On the topic of post-communist societies:

I think a lot of the developments has to do with the country's tradition prior to the onset of communism. A country with a democratic history and tradition will transition easier into a western democracy than a country which, pre-communist revolution, was a feudal system with no democratic traditions. I believe some of the problems that plague Russia may be attributed to this.

 

I completely agree with your post.

 

On transition - were there any former communist countries that did not start off as feudal systems before they went through revolution, war, or whatever it was that led them to communism? East Germany perhaps, but they were not a democracy either before communism.

 

It would be fun to compare the problems faced by Russia to those over here (Serbia) and other transitioning countries.

[Rosie_0801]

That is the heart of the problem with communism, in my opinion. In my experience, a new elite certainly replaces the old dominant class. The dictator himself (only men so far, right?) lives a lavish life, and those who belong to the political elite do, too.

 

And what characteristics does a person need to get to the top? A warm heart? Generally not...

 

Rosie

[9763653]

And what characteristics does a person need to get to the top? A warm heart? Generally not...

 

Rosie

 

:lol:

[FrogMom5]

I apologize for not responding the last 2 days. My dh and oldest ds were returning from a big hiking trip out west and I was getting ready for their return, plus a few other things. Life got more hectic than I had planned.

 

Dialectica - I do think you are correct about human nature. It does not seem to be internal to humans to be equal to each other. Maybe it's part of our survival mechanism. We don't want others to suffer, but we want to make sure that we have a plentiful and comfortable life. It seems that we want more than just survival and that's ok. But, some people are better at it than others, whether through good business sense or manipulative, corrupt means. So, yes, systems need to have built in mechanism which allow people ways to improve their lives.

 

Regentrude - this is exactly how I understood communism. However, since I've never lived in a communist country, many people tell me that I don't really know, I'm just speculating. So, thank you for stating what I thought to be true.

 

And Rosie - as usual, you hit the mark. Human compassion is completely missing in such a system.

 

I'm out of questions at this time, probably because I'm a bit brain dead - we got home from the airport at 3 a.m. That's a long story. :tongue_smilie: I hope you all have more to add. Looking forward to it.

 

This is an interesting and enlightening thread. Thank you!

 

I will save this thread for when ds is studying govt. and economic systems. It will really help.

Denise

Edited August 5, 2011 by FrogMom5
Forgot to add -