The answer is a communist party

[Revoltingest]

Alright, first we have to free the proletariat. In this case, that would probably be the us lowly posters.
Which means that the mods are the bourgeoise.
Let's overthrow the mods!

Just remember the one who nominated you when putting the enemies up against the wall.

 

[Stevicus]

It's an arguable point, given Hitler's control of "the means of production",
& his agreement with the USSR to divide up the area.
The Japan v USA relationship complicates things.
But fundamentally, WW2 wasn't about capitalism, but rather conquest.
So I don't buy this argument that communist economies result in less death.
They create the biggest famines in history.

That wasn't exactly my argument here.

However, Hitler was definitely a capitalist. There was private enterprise and extremely wealthy people in Germany. Not to mention US industrialists doing business with Nazi Germany.

WW2 was rooted in WW1. Conquest was only one part of the equation, since the goal was control of land and resources - which benefited capitalists. Soviet concerns were about creating a buffer zone between the USSR and Germany, and the West's policy of Appeasement at the time was probably the impetus which led to Stalin making a temporary pact with Hitler.

I can't recall exactly what Marx said about it, but there's the idea that capitalists are simply prone to fighting each other over resources and booty - just like pirates and thieves often fall out with each other and try to get each other's loot. Stalin might have seen Germany and the West as equal enemies and all part of the same capitalist camp. So, he may have been hoping for Germany to get bogged down in a long-term war with France and Britain, which would weaken and exhaust his primary enemies.

 

[Revoltingest]

That wasn't exactly my argument here.

However, Hitler was definitely a capitalist. There was private enterprise and extremely wealthy people in Germany. Not to mention US industrialists doing business with Nazi Germany.

I addressed that recently on another thread.
Hitler was both in name & deed arguably socialist.
But even if he were socialist, I wouldn't chalk up the deaths he caused to "socialism".
This is because what he did was independent of the economic system he imposed.
Moreover, I don't blame the USSR's collaboration with Hitler on their socialism either.
Both were about conquest.
Famines under communism/socialism are different though because they're a direct
consequence of the system. The same is true with massive deadly domestic purges,
which are a recurring feature of totalitarian/oppressive governments.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Whoops! I think you isolated the problem.

No plan will succeed if its executed by people who are corrupt, incompetent or both.

True for capitalism, too.

 

[Stevicus]

Transportation of goods is integral to agriculture.
And the former's failure is also due to centralization,
& the elimination of individual initiative.

I don't see centralization as being a necessary or primary goal of communism. In fact, when Lenin said "all power to the Soviets," he was referring to local town councils ("soviet" is just the Russian word for "council").

But they already had a centralized system under the Tsar, and that's what they were used to and what they fell into in terms of how they managed the country.

Similarly, the transportation system they inherited from the Tsarist government was insufficient and woefully behind the West in terms of development and technology. And the West was certainly not going to help the Soviet government improve its infrastructure, so they had to figure it out for themselves - and that took time. But again, that's not a systemic issue as much as it was a circumstantial one.

As for "individual initiative," there might be those who would consider that to be an exaggerated myth invented in the West. All this talk about "individualism" and "individual achievement" is just bunkum for the masses.

That's not to say that there aren't some exceptional individuals out there who made their mark in the world, but humans also tend to be a very social and cooperative species. Some people even sacrifice their own comfort or even their lives, for the greater good of their collective.

Of course, such cooperation didn't always apply to other tribes, other nations, or other religions/cultures. That's been a problem throughout history, although that may be why some communists wanted a unified world where all humans have value and are considered equal. It appeals to the higher qualities of humans - cooperation, mutual goodwill, and working together for a mutually-beneficial goal.

On the other hand, capitalism is fine if you're on the winning side. Win wars of conquest and get all the goodies. That explains our good fortune here, along with a good deal of geopolitical chicanery. Sure, we didn't really oppress "our own" (at least not in recent times), since there were people all over the world we could stick it to.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see centralization as being a necessary or primary goal of communism.

It's just what happens when governments adopt communism/socialism.
Communism without central control....if it's possible, what examples are there?

 

[Stevicus]

It's just what happens when governments adopt communism/socialism.
Communism without central control....if it's possible, what examples are there?

Well, if they were given a chance and time to make it work, who knows? I can't think of any examples offhand, but remember that capitalists had thousands of years to work the bugs out of their system. Communists have only recently arrived on the scene. So, if they had more time without excessive outside pressure to sabotage them and set them up for failure, it might actually work.

But if nobody wants to even try, then I guess that's that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, if they were given a chance and time to make it work, who knows? I can't think of any examples offhand, but remember that capitalists had thousands of years to work the bugs out of their system. Communists have only recently arrived on the scene. So, if they had more time without excessive outside pressure to sabotage them and set them up for failure, it might actually work.
But if nobody wants to even try, then I guess that's that.

You're welcome to try communism....just in some other country.
I don't want it imposed upon me.
"Revoltistan" doesn't want to be renamed "The Killing Fields".

But if you really want to try it, why not find like minded people,
& form a voluntary association like a cooperative or commune.
You could expand as you prosper. This is certainly legal &
possible withing the framework of capitalism.

 

[Stevicus]

I addressed that recently on another thread.
Hitler was both in name & deed arguably socialist.
But even if he were socialist, I wouldn't chalk up the deaths he caused to "socialism".
This is because what he did was independent of the economic system he imposed.
Moreover, I don't blame the USSR's collaboration with Hitler on their socialism either.
Both were about conquest.
Famines under communism/socialism are different though because they're a direct
consequence of the system. The same is true with massive deadly domestic purges,
which are a recurring feature of totalitarian/oppressive governments.

Hitler was very much a staunch anti-communist. Of course, back in those days, "socialism" wasn't quite the dirty word that it would later come to be in American parlance, and most people were capable of making a distinction between "communism" and "socialism." By some standards, even monarchs and aristocrats of Europe might be considered "socialists" in that they were so wealthy already that they didn't mind sharing some of it to make a better life for their people. I believe the Kaiser interceded on behalf of striking miners against the capitalists.

When you say that "both were about conquest," that only tells half the story.

 

[Stevicus]

You're welcome to try communism....just in some other country.
I don't want it imposed upon me.
"Revoltistan" doesn't want to be renamed "The Killing Fields".

But if you really want to try it, why not find like minded people,
& form a voluntary association like a cooperative or commune.
You could expand as you prosper. This is certainly legal &
possible withing the framework of capitalism.

Well, it would have to be world-wide. If it's just a few isolated communities or countries, then they would obviously be at an extreme disadvantage and would likely fail.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, it would have to be world-wide. If it's just a few isolated communities or countries, then they would obviously be at an extreme disadvantage and would likely fail.

Capitalism can exist for small groups.
Communism can exist only with world domination?

 

[Kirran]

Capitalism can exist for small groups.
Communism can exist only with world domination?

Anarchism is communism, really, and that works well for groups at all sorts of scales

 

[Revoltingest]

Anarchism is communism, really, and that works well for groups at all sorts of scales

Anarchic communism doesn't bother me.
It's the coercive kind I'd avoid.

 

[Kirran]

Anarchic communism doesn't bother me.
It's the coercive kind I'd avoid.

I might be old-fashioned, but I tend to think if it's totalitarian it's not really communist.

 

[Revoltingest]

I might be old-fashioned, but I tend to think if it's totalitarian it's not really communist.

Except that the two appear to go hand in hand.
Without totalitarianism, government couldn't prevent
outbreaks of free economic association, ie, capitalism.

 

[Kirran]

Except that the two appear to go hand in hand.
Without totalitarianism, government couldn't prevent
outbreaks of free economic association, ie, capitalism.

Sure, why prevent it?

Also, why have government?

Worked very well in Revolutionary Spain, the Free Territory, works for the Zapatistas and Cheran and many societies in Bolivia, Oaxaca, South Africa, Sri Lanka, not to mention Rojava!

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, why prevent it?

If commies didn't prevent capitalism, people would quickly gravitate towards it.
Consider the USSR's thriving black market. It's how people survived & even
thrived when the state failed them.
Remember that they came up with the joke....
"They pretend to pay us, & we pretend to work."

Also, why have government?

Don't tell anyone that I said this.
There's a stereotype of libertarians being opposed to government.

Spoiler: Shhhhhh! Confidential!

Government is useful....national defense, police, courts, national parks, money, environmental regulation...

Worked very well in Revolutionary Spain, the Free Territory, works for the Zapatistas and Cheran and many societies in Bolivia, Oaxaca, South Africa, Sri Lanka, not to mention Rojava!

No mention of the communist/socialist countries I usually think of?
So I checked one, ie, Sri Lanka.
It interested me because a friend lives there half the year.
He's all about capitalism, so I wondered, & found....
Economy of Sri Lanka - Wikipedia
Looks like a mixed economy to me.

 

[Wu Wei]

Mongols were capitalists?
.

Nope

Capitalist is defined as a person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism.

Capitalism is defined as an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

The Mongols, under Genghis Kahn, were, for the most part,a meritocracy...as long as it was convenient.....when not convenient they were totalitarian... also there was no money being invested for profit...there was a lot of payments made to the Mongols for their profit. And a leader refusing the Kahn's offer of trade could get him molten silver poured into his eyes and ears.... Don't think a CEO in a capitalist society is allowed to do that...no matter how much he may want to

 

[Stevicus]

Nope

Capitalist is defined as a person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism.

Capitalism is defined as an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

The Mongols, under Genghis Kahn, were, for the most part,a meritocracy...as long as it was convenient.....when not convenient they were totalitarian... also there was no money being invested for profit...there was a lot of payments made to the Mongols for their profit. And a leader refusing the Kahn's offer of trade could get him molten silver poured into his eyes and ears.... Don't think a CEO in a capitalist society is allowed to do that...no matter how much he may want to

You've never heard of the Mafia?

 

[Stevicus]

Capitalism can exist for small groups.
Communism can exist only with world domination?

Apparently that's been the case, largely because capitalists in this world have been unwilling to accept peaceful coexistence.