Capitalism, Marxism and Related Matters

[3 Body No Problem]

Imperialism has 'has not been practised by the advanced capitalist states for a long time'?

When was the last time it was practised in your opinion?

I apologise for being imprecise here. What I should have said was: Imperialism has not been practised by procedural democracy with a capitalist economy for a long time. I used to term "advanced captialist" as a shorthand for such states (which also feature a free press, independent judiciary and so on). I should have made that clear. Calling them "Advanced capitalist" is problematic, because of entities like Singapore.

The history of US and UK aggression against, and inteference with other nations in the 20th century alone has been well documented and makes a mockery of that claim.

I agree, however the UK can reasonably be called a democracy only after the loss of the empire in the 1950 or 1960s. The US is the most interesting and most problematic case for me. Internally, the US can be said to have become a democracy (in the conventional sense of the word of all citizens being allowed to vote) only when blacks got effectively the same formal rights as whites, which happened in the 1960s. To this day the US still dominates many countries on this planet without giving the citizens of these places adequate democratic representation. So it is on some level questionable if the US can be called a democracy in my sense (i.e. the real sense) of all subjects -- citizens or otherwise -- having electoral franchise. But there are mitigating factors.

• The kind of dominance that the US practises in e.g. Western Europe, is very different from, and much more benign than the imperialist dominance of, say France in Viet Nam, or Belgium in Kongo, or the Soviet Union in the Baltics.
• Internally the US is very democratic (in the sense of procedural democracy), with the electoral franchise being extended to almost all its (adult) citizens. This is very different from, and much better than the feudal regimes of Europe, or the autocracies of the communist world.

 

[3 Body No Problem]

Thats all up for debate really, but one thing that is clear, especially in the US, is that 'socialist' elements - unions, welfare etc... have beeen systematically rolled back. In fact the US under Reagan and Britain under Tatcher (and now labour) are pioneers in the elimination of social safety nets for their populations.

That's true, but Reagan and Thatcher were elected into office, reelected, suggesting that the populace agreed with their policies to a fair degree, and left office peacefully. In terms of human history this is great progress. Their successors continued many of their policies, with great economic success. A few years ago, Britain elected a government to reverse some thatcherite policies. The US will probably do so soon with regards to health care.

And of course, the systems these countries prescribe, permit and enforce on weaker countries are about as far from socialism as you can get.

That's true, but I think that's because most (all?) successful transitions of poor countries to wealth happened using capitalist economic principles coupled with huge state investment into education, social housing and so on.

That said, the "Washington consensus" which never was a consensus, and is probably quite out of fashion now, was certainly a bad idea on many levels.

 

[Mr. Tea]

A further correction to make is that, despite the repulsive policies of State communists/marxists towards their own populations, the record of external aggression of China and Russia (I assume you were referring to them) pales in comparison to the Western aggression and interference in the third world.

The record of the junior partner alone is illustrative:



Cont...

Oh come on - China's invasion of Tibet? China/N. Korea's invasion of S. Korea? Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Soviet invasion of just about the whole of Eastern Europe? Chinese aggression against India in the '60s? Soviet missiles in Cuba? North vs. South Vietnam?

 

[droid]

I agree, however the UK can reasonably be called a democracy only after the loss of the empire in the 1950 or 1960s.

Well, Im not sure I agree with that, but how does that mitigate my comments? The record of UK aggression since the 50s is obscene.

The US is the most interesting and most problematic case for me. Internally, the US can be said to have become a democracy (in the conventional sense of the word of all citizens being allowed to vote) only when blacks got effectively the same formal rights as whites, which happened in the 1960s. To this day the US still dominates many countries on this planet without giving the citizens of these places adequate democratic representation. So it is on some level questionable if the US can be called a democracy in my sense (i.e. the real sense) of all subjects -- citizens or otherwise -- having electoral franchise. But there are mitigating factors.

Yes. And barriers to entry, major electoral fraud etc...

[*] The kind of dominance that the US practises in e.g. Western Europe, is very different from, and much more benign than the imperialist dominance of, say France in Viet Nam, or Belgium in Kongo, or the Soviet Union in the Baltics.

'e.g. Western Europe'!!

As Im sure youre aware that is an utterly skewed and selective example. What about US actions in the Americas, the mideast or in South east asia, where the character of intervention is far lass benign than the examples you have given?

In western Europe there was the Greek civil war where the West supported reactionary elements against those who had liberated the country from Nazi occupation, a pattern repeated to a lesser extent throughout much of Europe, and then of course there was electoral interference in Italy, supprot for fascism in Spain etc...

Internally the US is very democratic (in the sense of procedural democracy), with the electoral franchise being extended to almost all its (adult) citizens. This is very different from, and much better than the feudal regimes of Europe, or the autocracies of the communist world.

Sure, but with serious caveats. Democracy cannot simply be declared and taken for granted forever after, rather its something that must be constantly measured and evaluated. The US is obviously more democratic than outright dictatorships, but far less democratic as nations that have popular mass movements and elements of direct democracy.

 

[Mr. Tea]

In western Europe there was the Greek civil war where the West supported reactionary elements against those who had liberated the country from Nazi occupation...

...and went on to commit plenty of massacres of their own once the Nazis were defeated...

To be honest, I can't really see this debate getting anywhere useful if we're going to sit here racking our brains for atrocities, coups and invasions committed by this or that Marxist or capitalist country. The Big Question (not the one asked in this thread, but in another thread that went on for a long time, and it seems the most important question to be asking, in general geopolitical terms) is "If not capitalism, then what?". If we're going on the historical record, it seems to me that communist states, in terms of absolute death toll and most serious deviations from democracy and violations of liberty, are generally worse than capitalist ones. That's not, of course, to exonerate the US, UK, France or any other country for actions that are at odds with a professed love of democracy, freedom and equality.

 

[droid]

Oh come on - China's invasion of Tibet? China/N. Korea's invasion of S. Korea? Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Soviet invasion of just about the whole of Eastern Europe? Chinese aggression against India in the '60s? Soviet missiles in Cuba? North vs. South Vietnam?

Portraying the Vietnam war as an act of Soviet aggression is utterly ridiculous. The soviet invasion of Eastern Europe - not really aggressive wars. Political domination and imposition of state communism after the war would be generally counted as internal aggression (apart maybe for Hungary and Czechoslovakia). Soviet missiles in Cuba? A response to American missiles in Turkey as is well known. Afghanistan? CIA provoked as we all also know.

And take notice of one thing. With the exception of Cuba, all major interventions were taken against neighbouring states.

(You missed out the Soviet adventures in Africa (notably Ethipoia) and the Mid East btw.)

But anyway, even taking all of this at face value, the record of US and UK aggression is still staggering in comparison. Especially if you take into account the actions of supported states like South Africa and Israel.

Ive already posted a list of UK malfeasance. Here are the major US interventions since WW2:

China, 1945-49:
Italy, 1947-48:
Greece, 1947-49:
Philippines, 1945-53:
South Korea, 1945-53:
Albania, 1949-53:
Germany, 1950s:
Iran, 1953:
Guatemala, 1953-1990s:
Middle East, 1956-58:
Indonesia, 1957-58:
British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64:
Vietnam, 1950-73:
Cambodia, 1955-73:
The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65:
Brazil, 1961-64:
Dominican Republic, 1963-66:
Cuba, 1959 to present:
Indonesia, 1965:
Chile, 1964-73:
Greece, 1964-74:
East Timor, 1975 to present:
Nicaragua, 1978-89:
Grenada, 1979-84:
Libya, 1981-89:
Panama, 1989:
Iraq, 1990s:
Afghanistan, 1979-92:
El Salvador, 1980-92:
Haiti, 1987-94:
Somalia, 1992-1994
Sudan, 1998
Yugoslavia, 1999
Haiti, 2004
Afghanistan 2002-
Iraq 2003-

And these are only the major interventions.

And once again, this is not a pissing contest. Im not denying crimes committed by brutal 'communist' dictators, simply pointing out the facts in response to the laughable suggestion that Capitalist states are 'the most peaceful' and that when they intervene its usually 'benign', when in fact, they have carried out far more acts of external aggression, often in a far more brutal fashion.

 

[droid]

...and went on to commit plenty of massacres of their own once the Nazis were defeated...

Care to expand?? There was infighting between leftist groups sure...

Strange how you can highlight this but ignore say the massacre of about 100,000 communists in Korea prior to the Korean war...

If we're going on the historical record, it seems to me that communist states, in terms of absolute death toll and most serious deviations from democracy and violations of liberty, are generally worse than capitalist ones. That's not, of course, to exonerate the US, UK, France or any other country for actions that are at odds with a professed love of democracy, freedom and equality.

If we're going by historical record it is clear that 'peace-loving' capitalist states have committed far more acts of external aggression (including suppression of democracy and self determination) than the filthy communists.

If you really want a laugh you should check out the US/UK veto record at the UN...

State communists generally fucked with their own populations and immediate neighbours. major capitalist nations generally fucked with the rest of the world.

Why is that so hard to accept?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

To be honest, I can't really see this debate getting anywhere useful if we're going to sit here racking our brains for atrocities, coups and invasions committed by this or that Marxist or capitalist country. The Big Question (not the one asked in this thread, but in another thread that went on for a long time, and it seems the most important question to be asking, in general geopolitical terms) is "If not capitalism, then what?".

Agree - and I don't remember the other thread coming up with anything useful either.

 

[john eden]

Agree - and I don't remember the other thread coming up with anything useful either.

Which is funny cos you would think there would be a simple answer to such an easy question, innit?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Which is funny cos you would think there would be a simple answer to such an easy question, innit?

Well I don't think anyone here ever said there is, or should be! But it might be a better idea to admit that we don't know what to do (yet) than suggesting an ideology that history has repeatedly shown leads ineluctably to tyranny, economic stagnation (at the very least) and often mass murder as well.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Which is funny cos you would think there would be a simple answer to such an easy question, innit?

Well no, and that's precisely the point - instead of thinking about the impossible task of successfully replacing one entire social system with another, it would be more interesting and useful to look at particular parts of the system and bring about piecemeal change.

 

[fokse vektaire xeven]

That's true, but Reagan and Thatcher were elected into office, reelected, suggesting that the populace agreed with their policies to a fair degree, and left office peacefully. In terms of human history this is great progress. Their successors continued many of their policies, with great economic success. A few years ago, Britain elected a government to reverse some thatcherite policies. The US will probably do so soon with regards to health care.

So the Thatcher Reagen years were a golden age of human progress. certainly not how it felt growing up in them.

in no sense did Margaret Thatcher leave office peacefully, she was pushed out by her own party. If you mean in terms of foreign policy you seem to have forgotten the Cold War and the Falklands. It was Blairs government that is seen by many- though excepting you evidently- as a direct continuation and honing of Thatcherism.

Blair and Brown recognised that Thatcher had introduced a new orthodoxy. Their achievement was to browbeat their party to accept that the clock could not be put back

personally i think the great victory of capitalism is on an individual level, its appeal to self interest. on that level it is almost indissolubly powerful. if any of you were among the excluded rather than than beneficiaries i expect you would feel differently.

"If not capitalism, then what?".

Well, we might at least hold out some hope for a move toward truer democratic socialism, as oxymoronic as some claim it is. Whatever fits into your own value system. anything seems preferable to some kind of wearied and/or knowing acceptance...

Agree - and I don't remember the other thread coming up with anything useful either.

i was as surprised as you the last thread failed to effect world peace. let's all just get on with the primary business of consuming instead of having these ineffectual, academic debates.

 

[john eden]

Well no, and that's precisely the point - instead of thinking about the impossible task of successfully replacing one entire social system with another, it would be more interesting and useful to look at particular parts of the system and bring about piecemeal change.

One doesn't preclude the other.

Like it or not, capitalism is not the last form of organisation we will see on this planet.

 

[droid]

Well no, and that's precisely the point - instead of thinking about the impossible task of successfully replacing one entire social system with another, it would be more interesting and useful to look at particular parts of the system and bring about piecemeal change.

Absolutely. A good start would be to introduce elements of direct democracy into our political systems. let people have a genuine input into how their lives are run instead of grotesque 5 yearly popularity contests.

This is instructive (it all goes pear shaped of course):


Comelately made a good point earlier, its not the political/economic ideologies that cause the problem, its the fact that small groups of elites think that they know best and they have the right to dictate to the bewildered herd - an obvious problem on the left and a perennial feature in Western politics.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Well, we might at least hold out some hope for a move toward truer democratic socialism, as oxymoronic as some claim it is. Whatever fits into your own value system. anything seems preferable to some kind of wearied and/or knowing acceptance...

Yeah, I'd go with that, pretty much. A regulated (but not suffocated) market economy to generate wealth and produce consumer goods, a robust welfare state, publicly owned utilities and transport systems and a form of real democracy that helps people feel enfranchised and involved.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Absolutely. A good start would be to introduce elements of direct democracy into our political systems. let people have a genuine input into how their lives are run instead of grotesque 5 yearly popularity contests.

Agree - which country is the most directly democratic at the moment?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Agree - which country is the most directly democratic at the moment?

Switzerland would be a good bet. Each canton has half-a-dozen or more parties standing on a whole range of local issues, and there seem to be elections or referenda almost all the time. Democracy there isn't so much a political system as a national passtime.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

The US has many local variations between states too, doesn't it?

 

[droid]

Yeah. And Venezuela (despite the hype). Theres also significant movements in Brazil, Uruguay, Bolivia, South Africa, Mexico...

Of course, most of these groups are in direct opposition to globalisation, and would probably be described as communist/terrorist by the likes of the Wall Street journal.

 

[3 Body No Problem]

State communists generally fucked with their own populations and immediate neighbours. major capitalist nations generally fucked with the rest of the world.

Why is that so hard to accept?

Because it is false? Cambodia or Viet Nam are hardly Neighbours of the Soviet Union. Moreover by fucking with your immediate neighbours, your gain new neighbours and so on ... Anyway, Marxism is explicitly and openly an imperialist ideology with the goal of establishing a world-wide socialist state. The reason many state communists governments could not carry out their expansionist plans for world domination, is because they were contained in the cold war by the west. Most of the items of aggression in your list would not have happened but for a need to contain the Soviet Union, and China.

One can and should question some of the technique used by the west, especially in supporting dodgy dictators in the 3rd world, but seeing them without acknowledging a need to contain stalinist and maoist states is a gross distortion.