[ue_]

Even Marx said that capitalism and its rapid use of industrialisation is better than the feudalism that preceeded it in many places. I do not however agree that it's somehow better for there to be cheap labour and low wages in the thought that this will lead to progress. Rather we should compare our situation (speaking from the perspective of somewhere there are 'good' standards for workers and better wages than in some places) to those of the less fortunate workers, and see that we are both being exploited.

They are going through the same thing as us, but we still have people saying that capitalism will move us "forward". No, capitalism in these countries simply means that their exploitation isn't as readily obvious. It's "friendly". This is why there are pool tables in offices for example, it's there to placate you while your wages fail to represent the work you do. The discrepancy between the value of what is produced and the wages given in return is most visible in countries like China in these factories. It's less readily obvious when your boss lets you play pool in the office.

As far as I can tell, the only "indistrialization and modernization" that's going on is workers being treated better, while retaining the idea that it's fine to do certain things that, say, damage the environment and it's fine to maintain the discrepancy between the labour applied and the wages.

I think it ought to be abandoned as a whole, and this concept of "limits to what capitalists can do is better than stopping them from doing it" is abandoned. That's my two cents anyway.

[berntb]

I would ask for examples of alternative economies being built up and creating nice and democratic countries, but we both know that if you had any supporting data you would have started with it. :-)

Please note that experiments with alternative societal models often have failure modes like dictatorships and/or a large part of the population dying in horrible ways and/or... It is not something to experiment with lightly.

It is a pity that you proponents of alternative models are so full of hot air, good research and analysis would be needed; there ought to be better ways. Most of you guys sound like you are paid to discredit everything but the status quo.

[ue_]

>Please note that experiments with alternative societal models often have failure modes like dictatorships and/or a large part of the population dying in horrible ways and/or... It is not something to experiment with lightly.

I agree it's not something to be taken lightly, but saying that there have been failures in the past is not an argument against trying to fix those failures by systematically identifying them. The modern Marxist movement is focused on finding the failures of the 20th century attempts at Socialism.

Besides that, calling out capitalism for the exploitative system that it is by no means implies I'm supporting any particular societal model, nor that I approve of other's societal model. It only means that I disapprove of capitalism.

And you know, I'm sure that during feudalism there were lords, barons and peasants all saying the exact same thing you are saying right now. You can't simply dismiss every other model that society may be fitted to by pointing out that atrocities were committed in the past. That's painting with a brush that is too thick.

>nice and democratic countries And you're even assuming democracy is something inherently good. There is also the distinction between 'pure' democracy and 'bourgeois' democracy that's worth knowing about, as Engels wrote about.

[berntb]

>> but saying that there have been failures in the past is not an argument against trying to fix those failures by systematically identifying them.

>>You can't simply dismiss every other model that society may be fitted to by pointing out that atrocities were committed in the past.

That was not the point, really.

My point was partly the horrors of a failed societal experiment of the left wingers. But also not that the most other utopian attempts also failed -- but not generally with tens of millions murdered.

For instance, a Nazi would have a point if he/she argued "The mass murders was just one mistake, trust us next time about corporatism; look at the left extremists -- that is systematic failure all the way from Kuba/Nicaragua to the tens of millions in Sovjet/China to Campuchea. They are also systematically pro antisemites as much as we are, today."

So -- most experiments will fail; societies are really, really complex and hard to predict. See my last paragraph in previous comment -- the alternative left I've seen doesn't exactly inspire confidence in any new experiment when hand waving about the obvious problems and arguably having less credibility than the Nazis...

Any arguments for societal experiments need to acknowledge this. It is hard to better what we have now, reading most any history of alternative societies.

(Yes yes, Godwin. But I argue here that Godwin is unfair; the extreme lefties have worse statistics than the Nazis.)

>> And you're even assuming democracy is something inherently good.

Any society will by definition consist of interest groups pulling in different directions. They need to have a say. If you don't even acknowledge that, see my last paragraph in my previous comment... (which you didn't touch.)

(Or in the classical way of putting it: "Sure, democracy sucks -- but I have never seen a suggestion of anything close in niceness that wasn't just hand waving e.g. a juntas obvious interest in keeping the rest of the population as personal property...")

[berntb]

Sigh, I cleared up a bad grammar and made it worse. :-(

Change: My point was partly the horrors of a failed societal experiment of the left wingers. But also not that the most other utopian attempts also failed -- but not generally with tens of millions murdered.

To: ... The other part was that most other utopian attempts also failed badly (but not generally with tens of millions murdered).