I really don’t know. I think for certain types of crimes, I’m ok with it. Like rapists of young children. They have zero contribution to society and are unable to be repaired. I don’t know if this crime fits that threshold. 47 billion is ridiculous.
Consider what your thresholds are for what constitutes witnesses and admissions of guilt. For example, confessing to crimes that weren’t actually performed by them, do you honor the claim anyway?
And does a group of police witnessing a suspect or conversely a group of the suspect’s friends witnessing a police officer do something heinous count?
I’m not going to try to convince you otherwise but I just want you to recognize that your position is that you’re ok with “bad” people being killed as a form of punishment and mine is that ensuring that label is always appropriately applied is an impossibility.
I don’t like the thought of terrible people getting to continue to live if they’ve done irreparable harm to others, but I’m also not ok with saying that we totally need to burn THAT WITCH because Goody Constance totally witnessed them communing with the devil.
Osama/Hitler getting killed in military action - fine. An abused child/person killing their attacker - look the other way. Giving Edward Snowden lethal injection because he totally deserves it for endangering Americans - not acceptable.
Yea. It’s more like if this person can’t be studied or has no use here except to haunt the living, sure. Get rid of them. Some of them want that. Some psychos know how bad they are to society.
But then you have a lot to weigh in on. You said it shouldn’t exist at all. Which for the most part I do agree with. But there are some that I am ok with going away.
Hitler was not killed in action. He killed himself. People like Dr. Death or the rest of his inner cronies can be executed as well.
Normally I’d say that if you empower the state to execute a certain class of person you can look forward to the state changing that definition so that inconvenient people who did nothing wrong meet it, but I’m unlikely to be mistaken for someone who has committed 10s of billions of dollars in fraud and I can’t help but feel like maybe if just one robber baron is held responsible for the enormous suffering they cause in pursuit of an amount of wealth so vast that it can never be spent and essentially only functions as a high score then the rest will realize that there is the sharp, distinct possibility that they can be held responsible as well.
Political power projection and the manuevering to hide corruption is the ‘rich’ equivalent in highly socialist systems. Smart adaptive people are not necessarily moral or ethical people, so regardless of economic system or government types, you will always have the worry of unscrupulous opportunists.
If Vietnam has billionaires then why the f*ck were they fighting against capitalism in the Vietnam War? North Vietnam might as well have just asked to join South Vietnam and they could have skipped 20 years of wars. Looks like all they were really fighting against was democracy.
The freedom to run their own country whether that’s into the ground or into prosperity its the right of the vietnamese to self govern. How you correlate colonialism and democracy as the same thing is interesting.
The freedom to run their own country whether that’s into the ground or into prosperity its the right of the vietnamese to self govern.
Huh? Both North and South Vietnam gained independence in 1954. The South Vietnamese had an elected government by 1968. North Vietnam had a dictatorship so the people couldn’t run their own country. Then North Vietnam robbed South Vietnam of the ability to run their own country.
North Vietnam was literally fighting to deny the people to run their own country. To this very day nobody in Vietnam gets to choose their own leaders. The people are not allowed to govern themselves. But South Vietnam got to elect their own leader in 1968.
How you don’t know that French colonialism ended 10 years before Americans arrived is bizarre.
The South Vietnamese governments were all extremely repressive and pretty much openly fascist. The US pretty much didn’t care so long as they were opposed to communism (a recurring theme in US cold war foreign policy)…
So much of that was wrong. The last government was not “openly fascist” Thanks to the USA, it was democratically elected. North Vietnam was 100x more repressive than South Vietnam in 1975.
Under pressure from the US, they held elections for president and the legislature in 1967. The Senate election took place on 2 September 1967. The Presidential election took place on 3 September 1967
The US should really be congratulated for not installing a fully fascist puppet government that one time.
Even in that last election, 57% of the voting age population voted, which sounds great but it was 84% of those eligible to vote. Huge swathes of the population were not allowed to vote due to their political beliefs or past opposition to the government.
Even in that last election, 57% of the voting age population voted
That was actually better than most countries.
The big picture is that the Vietnamese dictatorship did exactly the wrong thing. Creating a billionaire class proves that they ditched socialism. But they kept the dictatorship. They should have instead entrenched socialism and become a democracy. That would have been a very interesting thing to see. That they did exactly the wrong thing proves that North Vietnam’s entire reason for fighting the war was a farce.
Some are more guilty than others, and she’s definitely near the top of the list.
Still, curious to see what a Socialist country like Vietnam does when its prosecutors catch a person like Truong My Lan red handed. Its such a far cry from what American prosecutors did with offending bank managers after the 2008 Financial Collapse or the UK prosecutors who investigated the Wirecard scandal or the SEC/FCC responded to countless instances in which Elon Musk got caught manipulating stock prices.
Goes to show you what happens when your country has a tyrannical government and its billionaires don’t enjoy any freedoms.
Do people consider the US to not be capitalist because of SEC regulations, the FDA, FAA, and other organizations impeding the free market? Do people consider the US to not be capitalist because of tariffs on, say, Canadian aluminum?
Why do people consider only end-stage communism to be true communism? Why do people consider only end-stage socialism to be true socialism?
I consider the US not capitalist because the most important component of the economy, money, is centrally planned by a small committee of insiders. Broken money leads to broken markets. I’d be ok with calling it crony capitalism.
it’s not capitalism because the capital is controlled by few people?
Isn’t that the point of being a capitalist to secure more capital? Why would a pure-capitalist want Market regulation, and not themselves with all the money and everyone else with none?
It’s just semantics at the end of the day, so not too important, but I’ll play along because I happen to be someone who will call the U.S capitalist, but doesn’t understand why people call China communist.
First, I’ll start off with some definitions. If you disagree on one, provide your own and we can use those for the sake of discussion.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
_
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.
_
Communism is a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need. A communist society would entail the absence of private property, social classes, money and the state (or nation state).
So essentially the easiest way to determine if your society is capitalist or socialist is the existence of private property. If the society is devoid of private property, then the question remains what kind of socialism is it (is there money? Markets? Social classes? A state?).
China isn’t even socialist by this definition, but even if it was, it would still be miles away from communist.
This is a rather reductionist view of capitalism, socialism, and communism. To understand these systems, we need to take a look at the actual literature.
In 1776, Adam Smith published his work “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” which defined the cornerstones of capital, money, and value theory in the context of the changing economies of the 18th century. Smith’s work is known for concepts such as “the invisible hand” and “competition prevents exploitation” through free market capitalism.
In 1867, Karl Marx published his work “Das Kapital,” which offered a critique on some of capitalism’s theories. This work provided the foundation for work on class theory, class struggle, and the notion of socialist/communist states. The key definitions being that capitalism separates the workers (who contribute labour) from the capitalist class (who contribute capital and thus machines and forces to improve productivity) and that socialist states place increasing control of these productive forces in the hands of the state (as opposed to the capitalist class). The other key work towards these notions is “The Communist Manifesto,” written with Friedrich Engels. The slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is perhaps the most representative.
Following Marx, Vladimir Lenin wrote critiques of capitalism and described how revolution could be used to achieve a socialist and (eventually) communist society. Mao Zedong’s writings discuss the ideas of revolution to achieve socialism and communism from a Chinese perspective, rather than the Russian one that Lenin had. Crucially, while Marx had written on the socialist transition as one for the advanced capitalist societies of Germany and England, Lenin and Mao approached it more from the perspective of how socialism could be realized from the predominantly agricultural economies of Russia and China.
In 1936, John Maynard Keynes published his work “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,” which looked at savings and consumption in the context of the Great Depression. This work forms the foundation for much of modern fiscal and economic policy in the West. Keynes called for government intervention in support of the economy, deviating from Smith’s notions of a free market.
Perhaps the most relevant ideas on the topic today are from Deng Xiaoping Thought, which provided concrete ideas of developing Chinese socialism in the context of a capitalist global economy and in the context of China’s predominantly agricultural economy. This work was kick-started by “Putting into Effect the Socialist Principle of Distribution According to Work,” which described how China was unable to make progress from the primary stage of socialism due to the lack of productive forces which could be leveraged. Remember that Marx’ writings were written from observations of the great industrialized European powers, not the perceived agricultural backwaters of Russia and China.
The crucial concept of Deng Xiaoping Thought is the idea of a socialist market economy. Crucially, that socialism inherently involves the elimination of poverty (pulling people up) rather than the moderation of productivity (pulling people down). As per Keynes, a planned economy with government intervention does not preclude capitalism, and the lack of one does not preclude socialism. Indeed, per Keynes, public ownership of property did not preclude capitalism, and by extension Deng Xiaoping Thought argues that private ownership of property does not necessarily preclude socialism. Indeed, Engels work on the subject discusses that the abolishment of private property cannot happen immediately, and instead proposes alternatives (progressive taxation, inheritance taxes, development of state-owned enterprises) in the meantime for those countries struggling to get past the primary stage of socialism.
Just as a true Smithian free market capitalist economy does not exist, a true Marxist end-stage socialist economy does not exist. If you’ve any interest in this space, the works of Smith and Keynes on one side and Marx, Engels, and Deng on the other side provide pretty complementary coverage of things. In this framework, Smith, Marx, and Engels can be treated as one group (laying the foundations of the work) while Deng and Keynes can be treated as the ones building on top of those core ideas to adapt them to the realities of the situation (for Deng, China’s agriculturally-dependent economy, and for Keynes, the Great Depression).
In practice, we can see the obvious differences between the American and Chinese economies. Whereas the US economy is led by giant multinationals, China’s is led primarily by SOEs. Whereas US billionaires who hold productive forces are essentially invulnerable to government prosecution, Chinese billionaires are not. Whereas land in China is either owned by the state or by farmer collectives, land in the US is mostly privately held.
I haven’t read all of these, but I have read a good deal of Marx/Engles, and am working through Das Kapital currently.
I have written similar comments to this, going over the history of thought. It’s important, and not something to be taken lightly (though there is a fine line between being thorough and gishgalloping, especially in the context of forums like lemmy/reddit/etc.)
Maybe you’re of the view that communism is such a loaded word that trying to define it in just a few dozen or hundred words is a pointless exercise. That’s fine, but if the word is so loaded and complicated, you probably shouldn’t be attaching it to nation-states to try to succinctly describe part of their economic system. The only people you’d be transmitting information to are the people who have the dozen or so required readings under their belt to truly grasp what you meant by communism. At this point, the word provides no value.
No economic system can actually be totally described by a single word, ever. However, a single word can be used to describe a part of a system, and it can be used in a reliable way. I pointed to very common definitions of the words, ones you seem to disagree with, and even in the ~thousand or so words you wrote you didn’t provide clear alternative definitions. That signals to me you probably need tens of thousands of words to properly define what you mean by the word “communism”, and at that point the utility of the word is just completely lost.
I mean, you’re precisely on the right track, which is why no country has ever claimed to be communist. They’ve all claimed to be at various stages of socialism with the end goal of achieving communism. Economic systems are extremely complex, as are the core differentiators between them. There’s rarely a way to cleanly claim “this is true of a capitalist economy but not of a socialist economy” and have that apply to the real world because most economies lie somewhere between free market capitalism and end-stage socialism. The words are horrendously overloaded and have no meaning in comparisons between actual countries. You’re mapping a binary statement onto a spectrum.
Having read Marx/Engels, I really do think Smith is a good place to go from there. Not necessarily because his ideas are great, but because it provides a lot of context for the world in which Marx and Engels were writing from.
Edit: perhaps the cleanest way to differentiate the systems is in their goals. Marx writes “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” implying some degree of central planning to improve the lives of people, while Smith writes “By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it” implying that people are “led by an invisible hand to promote an end [for the betterment of society].”
The goal of semantics, and words in general, are to convey ideas. It was true in the past that socialism was a very concrete, straightforward thing. If you believed in worker control of the means of production, you were a socialist. Now there are people who say they’re socialist, and they advocate for private tyrannies for the foreseeable future (decades or sometimes even a century+). They want entire generations of humans to be wage slaves, serve the interests of capital, pay their reduced wages to land leeches and banks, and then die without having ever seen a better system.
Those systems, systems by which entire generations of people are subjugated to the interests of capital under authoritarian rule, are now called socialist or sometimes communist. And I no longer have the word to describe a system where wage slavery is immediately abolished (much like chattel slavery was), and workers take immediate control over the means of production.
Those societies/institutions were often overthrown and overrun by either conservative Marxists (e.g Lenin) or fascists (e.g Catalonia).
The entire foundation of Marxist thought was that the economies in question were industrialized, productive, and developed. Those were, Marx argued, the circumstances for which the progression towards socialism would be natural.
Look now at when socialist revolutions occurred and the state of those countries at that time. It’s difficult to argue that those countries were industrialized, productive, or developed.
Lenin and Mao were running off script. According to Marx, every country must transform it’s peasants into proletarians. Historically, this had been done through a period of capitalist development. How do you pursue socialist ideals in a country of peasants?
The only metric that page uses to define India as socialist is “makes a constitutional reference to socialism”. That can mean socialism is some end goal, or they just have policy inspired by socialism.
Words have definitions, so just saying “this country is socialist” is not enough evidence to declare that country is socialist, unless your definition of socialism is “a system which people call socialist”.
By that definition, America is socialist so long as I call it socialist. It becomes tautological and useless.
Well I didn’t create that Wiki page, so I’m only just reiterating what it says on there.
According to that page it is, in whatever way you want to interpret that page as.
The only metric that page uses to define India as socialist is “makes a constitutional reference to socialism”. That can mean socialism is some end goal, or they just have policy inspired by socialism.
Having said all that, they are actually declaring they are socialists in their constitution, so even if they don’t get to it to a point where you think it’s socialist, they think they’re are already, or are going towards socialism.
People say things for reasons, and those reasons aren’t always to express the true state of things. For example, it’s powerful to capture positive social sentiment around socialism without having to actually relinquish any power to the working class. It effectively destroys workers’ ability to communicate effectively about what we want to see in the world.
Back in the day, you could simply say “I’m a socialist” and that meant that you advocated for a system where workers owned the means of production, and private property didn’t exist. Now you can say the same thing, and what does it mean? Literally nothing, it’s an incoherent thing to say because it has too many contradictory meanings.
I still identify as a libertarian socialist, but every other person I talk to doesn’t understand what I mean by this (pro-China? pro-Bernie? interested in dismantling private ownership? want to slightly increase taxes on corporations and implement universal healthcare?). Most people that use the label libertarian socialist align with the original definition of socialism, and I find value in that. However for the purposes of communicating to people who don’t agree with the position, it’s effectively useless.
Destroying that avenue to communicate was definitely intentional, it subverts actual organizational efforts. The same thing has happened with unions. Essentially the entire 19th century socialist movement has been systematically destroyed through propaganda and language manipulation.
Well truly, I don’t mean to discredit what you are saying (especially since its being said well), but I gotta just point out again that they think they are socialists, enough so that they put it into their constitution.
“Boots on the ground” reality I agree with you that they are not (though I am an outsider, not a citizen of the nation, so my view is from the external), they seem very capitalistic to me. But again, their stated goals as per their constitution (and that wiki page while we’re at it) says otherwise.
Mercantilism and capitalism aren’t mutually exclusive, but the U.S is the opposite of mercantilist. Our imports vastly exceed our exports. China is more mercantilist, but still capitalist.
Unless of course you’re using a different definition. If you are, feel free to provide it and then I’ll address your claims on the basis of how you intended to use those words.
Another contributor to the high import are Mexico and Canada which off-paper are completely colonies. The US will import materials to them from the slave countries for assembly. Which lets them avoid the “made in China/Vietnam” sticker. The fact that only the US can but tariffs on trade between these three countries just further pushes that message
If we look at it that way then it can be seen as mercantilist. Moreover the point of calling it as such is to point out that even if you come up with a system to help workers and prevent generational wealth (like capitalism) the people with wealth get to decide how it works
Because there is text book pretty and harmonious communism, and there is the read thing in practice which is always bloody, hungry, horrible, and just absolutely terrible
This is why citing Wikipedia leads you astray. For example, read more carefully into what the CPC actually claims. They do not claim to have achieved communism.
Though I’m trying not to respond to you, it’s a good question. I don’t think anybody, including me, can explain how global oil markets really work. Those that can are making money right now and aren’t here. I’ve done a little spot market trading, and it is very reactive. Traders overprepare for events and always in worse case scenarios. I believe they overprepared for middle east war, and Iran’s attack was such a failure that they all reversed at the same time.
bbc.co.uk
Oldest