A Tale of Two Socialisms

[BobK71]

What we despise are the socialist countries of Cuba, the Soviet Union, China in the socialist days, etc.  We think that we have basically free-market, democratic systems in the West.

I invite everyone to think again.  I make the case that, while the above countries lived under economic socialism, we live under financial socialism, and that the results aren't all that different, fundamentally speaking.

Socialism depends on the ignorance of the people to survive.  Check and check.

It depends on the silencing of dissident voices.  Check and check.  Time and again, my discussions with economists suggest it's not that they don't know the system is rigged.  They don't want to know.

Central planning, whether in the economy or in money, is marketed as giving power to benevolent experts to act for the public good, with the reality of taking from the many to give to the few.  Check and check.

Periodic purges or revisions tell us the pain we're experiencing is due to the failure of past leadership and ideas.  Somehow, the system is fine but the people never seem to measure up.  Check and check.

Inequality is institutionalized.  People with centralized wealth and power tend to pass them to their offspring.  What we have, in effect, is modern feudalism.  Check and check.

One way or another, violence is the ultimate guarantor of the elites' power.  Mao: "political power comes from the barrel of the gun."  Paul Krugman: "the dollar is backed by men with guns."

Democracy is allowed as long as it only makes the system look good.  Socialist countries had real elections only at the town or village level.  The West has real elections only at the circus level.  Check and check, for filling positions of real power by 'indirect democracy.'

This is not to say there aren't major differences between 'capitalist' and socialist countries.  There are.  But not in a fundamental way, and not in the long run.

Sadly, it's true worldwide that those with power will not give it up easily, and certainly not for the good of the society at any time.  The only possible resistance, apart from self-education, is to cast a suspicious eye to every narrative promoted by the mainstream media, especially as it pertains to wars and terrorism.

It is here that the rubber meets the road, where our literal blood is spilled for the benefit of the elites.  It's here that we must be truly vigilant.

[Incodium Coin]

While various countries have come close, no country can boast of being a purely capitalist or socialist country, not in the purest form anyway. There are aspects of socialism in capitalist countries and there is enough evidence of the price mechanism at work in socialist countries. l do agree with some of the points you make, but the conclusion is overly simplistic.
NO, true power doesn't lie behind the barrel of a gun. This was the thinking behind to race to amass weapons in the 70s and 80s, but going by that the USSR would still be existing. l could go on, but you get the drift.

[pishite]

What we despise are the socialist countries of Cuba, the Soviet Union, China in the socialist days, etc.  We think that we have basically free-market, democratic systems in the West.

I invite everyone to think again.  I make the case that, while the above countries lived under economic socialism, we live under financial socialism, and that the results aren't all that different, fundamentally speaking.

Socialism depends on the ignorance of the people to survive.  Check and check.

It depends on the silencing of dissident voices.  Check and check.  Time and again, my discussions with economists suggest it's not that they don't know the system is rigged.  They don't want to know.

Central planning, whether in the economy or in money, is marketed as giving power to benevolent experts to act for the public good, with the reality of taking from the many to give to the few.  Check and check.

Periodic purges or revisions tell us the pain we're experiencing is due to the failure of past leadership and ideas.  Somehow, the system is fine but the people never seem to measure up.  Check and check.

Inequality is institutionalized.  People with centralized wealth and power tend to pass them to their offspring.  What we have, in effect, is modern feudalism.  Check and check.

One way or another, violence is the ultimate guarantor of the elites' power.  Mao: "political power comes from the barrel of the gun."  Paul Krugman: "the dollar is backed by men with guns."

Democracy is allowed as long as it only makes the system look good.  Socialist countries had real elections only at the town or village level.  The West has real elections only at the circus level.  Check and check, for filling positions of real power by 'indirect democracy.'

This is not to say there aren't major differences between 'capitalist' and socialist countries.  There are.  But not in a fundamental way, and not in the long run.

Sadly, it's true worldwide that those with power will not give it up easily, and certainly not for the good of the society at any time.  The only possible resistance, apart from self-education, is to cast a suspicious eye to every narrative promoted by the mainstream media, especially as it pertains to wars and terrorism.

It is here that the rubber meets the road, where our literal blood is spilled for the benefit of the elites.  It's here that we must be truly vigilant.

Everything is correctly written, but as many eyewitnesses say, in socialism (communism) many people in the USSR did not live completely badly, as people were confident in the future. Yes, there was cruel censorship and the Western countries extolled as the enemy. But other countries did the same. With regards to today's capitalism, I repeat once again that you are right.

[CryptoBry]

While various countries have come close, no country can boast of being a purely capitalist or socialist country, not in the purest form anyway. There are aspects of socialism in capitalist countries and there is enough evidence of the price mechanism at work in socialist countries. l do agree with some of the points you make, but the conclusion is overly simplistic. NO, true power doesn't lie behind the barrel of a gun. This was the thinking behind to race to amass weapons in the 70s and 80s, but going by that the USSR would still be existing. l could go on, but you get the drift.

Power can be amassed behind the barrel of the gun but it will not last for too long as people will realize that the real power is with them and there can be the time when people will use that power against the very government that they assume should be protecting them. Capitalism and democracy can be considered as bad systems but the problem is that many other contender ideas can't be considered as better alternatives. There are actually good ideas for governance but when they are applied human nature gets in the way leading to massive failures. We saw this with the communism in the 70s and 80s. In the end, there is no perfect system it is how we use the system that matters most. In addition, the end should not be used to justify the means.

[Haunebu]

One way or another, violence is the ultimate guarantor of the elites' power.  Mao: "political power comes from the barrel of the gun."  Paul Krugman: "the dollar is backed by men with guns."

I agree completely. No popular elite has ever risen to power without leaving a trail of bodies in the background in my opinion. Non-violence rarely helps the powerful people achieve their goals(Mahatma Gandhi's Non-Cooperation movement etc).

[hatshepsut93]

Whatever problems the western countries have, they are still insanely better than any socialist country - people have more rights, more freedoms, better level of life, more disposable income and so on and so on. Plenty of ex-Soviet countries have outright banned communism because they don't want to participate in this experiment ever again. People already throw terms like "nazi" and "socialist" at each other very liberally, so let's not create more confusion by saying that western countries are almost like socialist countries.

[BobK71]

While various countries have come close, no country can boast of being a purely capitalist or socialist country, not in the purest form anyway. There are aspects of socialism in capitalist countries and there is enough evidence of the price mechanism at work in socialist countries. l do agree with some of the points you make, but the conclusion is overly simplistic.
NO, true power doesn't lie behind the barrel of a gun. This was the thinking behind to race to amass weapons in the 70s and 80s, but going by that the USSR would still be existing. l could go on, but you get the drift.

Sorry if I didn't make this clear.  The true purpose of this essay was not to measure the various degrees of free markets and liberal values in different countries.  As I mentioned, there are major differences.  And yes, people do live much better in the West.

The purpose is to showcase how the Western power structure, in the way it really works, is structurally and fundamentally no different from socialism.  One major similarity is that it uses deception and military power to support what is effectively a transfer of wealth to the elites, at the core of the system.  

Remember, even socialist governments didn't say we'll take from you, out loud.  They said, give us the power and we'll take care of you.  The only real difference between us and them is that their power was in the full economic realm, and our elites' powers are hidden and confined only to the monetary and financial realms.

But since money and finance are at the heart of everything, our system is not fundamentally different from openly socialist ones.

Socialist countries didn't say that their soldiers and spies existed to keep the population under control.  They said these were necessary to fight the 'enemies of the people.'  Ours exist to fight/control the 'enemies of freedom' who just happen to be at the head of countries sitting on a lot of oil, oil that can be used to prop up the value of the dollar.  There's no fundamental difference between Soviet tanks entering rebellious Prague or Budapest, and US-created civil war to topple a rebellious Syrian leader.  (Even though oil is involved in the Venezuelan but not the Syrian case.)

The key thing to remember is that power corrupts, and that the only way to clean the corruption is to take the power of money and finance from the elites, in any country.

[carter34]

Inequality is institutionalized.  People with centralized wealth and power tend to pass them to their offspring.  What we have, in effect, is modern feudalism.  Check and check.

This is one glaring disadvantage of the system because wealth keeps circulating around the people within the corridor of government. Although, in some countries that are practicing "democracy" we still have such inequality too because of corruption. In practical, I don't think we have countries still running a socialist state.

[sheenshane]

This post is so much on point. People use the term and the democratic system as one of the best options to have great power. To own or become an elite member. To have a small group that will benefit from anything greater than the anyone. The media are big corporations that would like to keep on running their business. If they will fight the administration then that is the time they might be kicked from their operations.

Guns are so much power to have a strong power because life and death is the most important thing we have in this world. We have a natural way of having a fear to die. Capitalism and democracy are always bad but it is really something we can consider as a nature of us human beings. In the world, people will always do their best to become the alpha of the group. Not all but generally yes. Because becoming an alpha will give you powers and will make you stand-out. And it has the same thing as how the government becomes.

[davis196]

Your topic is in the wrong forum.It belongs to "Politics and society" rather than "Economics" sub-forum.
Your are talking way more about politics than economy.
The current world order can't be a called "socialism" because it doesn't give a damn about the poor people around the world.What you talking about is the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes that can be right-wing or left-wing.The ideology doesn't matter,it's all about money and power.

[Beerwizzard]

we live under financial socialism, and that the results aren't all that different, fundamentally speaking.

The economic socialism is quite different from what you describe. You can read about the economy of the Soviet Union and it is far not the same as you see today.

Paul Krugman: "the dollar is backed by men with guns."

If he say so it doesn't mean that he is right. The dollar is backed by the american government which have an obligations to collect trillions of dollars as taxes. Without this financial background all this military stuff would be useless.

Inequality is institutionalized.  People with centralized wealth and power tend to pass them to their offspring.  What we have, in effect, is modern feudalism.  Check and check.

The point is that in capitalism inequality naturally exist because some people work more than the others and provide a better outcome. Not everyone among us is such a good manager as Steve Jobs and it is pretty obvious that skilled people are getting more wealth.
While in socialism wealth is centralized in the hands of elite because they took it from the others and killing everyone who tries to get some of it.

Democracy is allowed as long as it only makes the system look good.  Socialist countries had real elections only at the town or village level.  The West has real elections only at the circus level.  Check and check, for filling positions of real power by 'indirect democracy.'

Just IMHO but it is pretty stupid to compare elections during socialism where people are not allowed to vote against their government (otherwise they are risking ti get killed) with the things that happen during democratic elections.

[Febo]

Democracy is allowed as long as it only makes the system look good.  Socialist countries had real elections only at the town or village level.  The West has real elections only at the circus level.  Check and check, for filling positions of real power by 'indirect democracy.'

Just IMHO but it is pretty stupid to compare elections during socialism where people are not allowed to vote against their government (otherwise they are risking ti get killed) with the things that happen during democratic elections.

You really believe in this? In democracy as we have, the capital place everyone. mayors, judges, presidents, congress. Everyone. BobK71 is more then right.

[Beerwizzard]

Democracy is allowed as long as it only makes the system look good.  Socialist countries had real elections only at the town or village level.  The West has real elections only at the circus level.  Check and check, for filling positions of real power by 'indirect democracy.'

Just IMHO but it is pretty stupid to compare elections during socialism where people are not allowed to vote against their government (otherwise they are risking ti get killed) with the things that happen during democratic elections.

You really believe in this? In democracy as we have, the capital place everyone. mayors, judges, presidents, congress. Everyone. BobK71 is more then right.

Just compare the political system that was in USSR with system that was in capitalistic countries. Usually, during socialism you've got only 1 political party while at the same time in western countries there is a fight between several political powers. This thing is called politics.
Mayors, presidents and congress have to deal with the financial side of their work. And courts should not be affected by capital and normaly in US and EU judges are normaly independent and I can't say the same about courts in socialistic countries).

[TheCoinGrabber]

The only reason I'd go with the "democratic" system is that even though we can't say we are completely financially free, we can still affect politics. Systems like China only works while the economy is good, if it's not you just suck it up and sit quietly in a corner.

[BobK71]

Power can be amassed behind the barrel of the gun but it will not last for too long as people will realize that the real power is with them and there can be the time when people will use that power against the very government that they assume should be protecting them. Capitalism and democracy can be considered as bad systems but the problem is that many other contender ideas can't be considered as better alternatives. There are actually good ideas for governance but when they are applied human nature gets in the way leading to massive failures. We saw this with the communism in the 70s and 80s. In the end, there is no perfect system it is how we use the system that matters most. In addition, the end should not be used to justify the means.

This is as Winston Churchill said, 'democracy is a terrible system, except for all the others.'  On the face of it, we cannot disagree with this.

What I try to point out is 'democracy' is not what we think it is at first sight.  Yes, we have free and fair voting in the West.  But it is not real democracy when the voters are deliberately and completely misinformed.  For example, how can voters stop the US-Saudi promoted war in Yemen when the only time they heard about it was when a school bus was blown up, which was really just the tip of the iceberg of the suffering from the war?

Since the center of our entire system is the money system, nothing around this center can be truly free of the state.  In practice, being controlled by 'the state' means being controlled by the state-bank elites.

[nur rochid]

The only reason I'd go with the "democratic" system is that even though we can't say we are completely financially free, we can still affect politics. Systems like China only works while the economy is good, if it's not you just suck it up and sit quietly in a corner.

I agree, at least with our voices it can still influence political travel, with a democratic system. from this system, the people's voice is very decisive to bring the direction of travel from a country

[guoyu78]

That's how life is, those in power never wants to go down. Power corrupts the mind just like it's been said, anyone that gets the opportunity to taste true power always seeks more, they never want to give up, they always want to get more and subdue those under them and make them suffer and serve them while they enjoy at the top. Just like in my country they will keep on telling you “the leaders of tomorrow” but you will never see those leaders of tomorrow, only the old men are the ones who keep on staying in power just like forever and they never get tired of running politics and stealing money even at their very old age. And they will always went their children to take over from where they stopped.

[Febo]

Democracy is allowed as long as it only makes the system look good.  Socialist countries had real elections only at the town or village level.  The West has real elections only at the circus level.  Check and check, for filling positions of real power by 'indirect democracy.'

Just IMHO but it is pretty stupid to compare elections during socialism where people are not allowed to vote against their government (otherwise they are risking ti get killed) with the things that happen during democratic elections.

You really believe in this? In democracy as we have, the capital place everyone. mayors, judges, presidents, congress. Everyone. BobK71 is more then right.

Just compare the political system that was in USSR with system that was in capitalistic countries. Usually, during socialism you've got only 1 political party while at the same time in western countries there is a fight between several political powers. This thing is called politics.
Mayors, presidents and congress have to deal with the financial side of their work. And courts should not be affected by capital and normaly in US and EU judges are normaly independent and I can't say the same about courts in socialistic countries).

They are not independent.  Corporations and capital controls all from media to political parties. They delegates who we then vote on. And they brainwash us to vote who they want.  I dont get how you cant see this.

[TheCoinGrabber]

The only reason I'd go with the "democratic" system is that even though we can't say we are completely financially free, we can still affect politics. Systems like China only works while the economy is good, if it's not you just suck it up and sit quietly in a corner.

I agree, at least with our voices it can still influence political travel, with a democratic system. from this system, the people's voice is very decisive to bring the direction of travel from a country

In countries that still have multiple parties and elections, any big business who want to lobby would have to be more careful on who they bet on. And their bets coming into power is no assurance that they can keep working together - politicians would distance themselves from scandals.

I suppose there's less people you have to bribe in single party governments.

[uneng]

Since the end of the URSS, the communists started infiltrating themselves in capitalist countries, as they learned with Gramsci, that the only way they could invade countries with solid and stable economies (occident countries) couldn't be through the tough, but through the implementation of the revolutionary ideals: slowly, gradually and subliminally without never declaring they are doing this.
Nowadays many countries structures are full of these *infiltrates*, sabotaging the capitalist system from inside. They don't make it work properly to say the system doesn't work, so we need socialism. It's hard to find pure free market capitalism nowadays, as it's being subverted.