Wizofus, to me there are two defining elements to capitalism - the creation of surplus value (eg profit) by workers which is then stolen by the boss, and competition.

Ironcally competition leads to monopolisation as the bigger fish eat the smaller fry. Stalinism took this one step further - the state became the collective embodiment of capital. Wage slavery (ie the extraction of profit from workers) continued and increased under Stalin and was the basis on which he indsutrialised the USSR. It was the stalinist state who stole the surplus workers created, and re-invested that suprlus in more modern technilogy and machinery.

So what about competititon then? The USSR and other stalinist regimes were (and, for those still in existence, are)in competition with the West. The same drive in the West to produce goods at a reduced cost (more mechanisation etc) existed in the Stalinist dictatorships. They had to produce things as efficiently as the West to survive. In fact for a while they did. The USSR between 1945 and 1970 was the second fastest growing economy in the world (possibly becuase of the low base it came from).

But in the end Stalinism collapsed because it could not compete with the Westand becuase its people rebelled against it.

So to my mind the two elements of capitalism - competition and wage slavery - existed in the stalinist countries, making them state capitalist regimes.

Well, with all due respect, I think it's pretty silly to claim that employers "steal" the profit generated through the efforts of employees. I do agree that we need a better framework for ensuring that employer salaries are not disproportionate to employee salaries, as (if nothing else) this ultimately leads to an unsustainable economic imbalance, where there is an insufficient market base for the products and services supplied by businesses. But without the risks and effort undertaken by employers to fund, manage and expand businesses in the first place, the employees would not be in a position to be generating much wealth at all, and further, employees voluntarily enter into employment constracts with businesses, so employers can reasonably claim a right to decide how to apportion wages (and, further, are usually the individuals who have the most to lose from getting it wrong).

I also agree that, all else being equal, competition has the tendency to lead to monopolies. Unlike in nature, where Darwinian competition has been responsible for the great variety and complexity of lifeforms that inhabit the planet today, businesses don't have a built-in death and rebirth cycle, and hence it's very common for a given business to grow to such a size that others either it near impossible to compete, or give in to financial temptation of being "bought out". While we have some amount of regulation to help minimise this tendency, there is definitely room for improvement.

I don't dispute for a moment the considerable amount of evidence that pure laissez-faire capitalism is not a sustainable system, but that doesn't mean throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Keith,

In its socialist phase, the British Labour Party nationalised steel, coal and other British industries. The UK did not end up as “a basket case of murder and mayhem…characterised with an utter disregard for human rights”. Nor did Sweden under socialistic rule for most of the past eighty years.

Democratic means democratic, but the use of the word in the title, “People’s Democratic Republic”, does not mean that the said sate was in any way democratic, as you accept. Similarly, socialist means socialist, but the use of the word in the title, “National Socialist German Workers Party”, does not mean that the said party was socialist. If the Nazis nationalised industry, I am not aware of it. As I understand history, private corporations continued under the Nazi regime, and some made profits from the death camps.

In the early years there was a socialist stream in the Nazi Party. Ernst Roehm, leader of the SA, was one who called for a “second revolution” against business. He, along with others, was murdered on the Night of the Long Knives, 30 June, 1934. Hitler had no intention of implementing the Nazi party’s socialist promises. He needed the army, the banks and business on his side. (William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich)

Socialism and communism are quite different. One difference is that you get to un-elect socialists, but you don’t get to un-elect communists. Nazism and communism are the same in regard to human rights, but they are not the same in regard to economic activity. Communist, fascist, Nazi and Japanese imperial regimes killed tens of millions. Elected socialist governments did not.

John Pilger's eulogy to Suharto:

http://pilger.carlton.com/page.asp?partid=473

Love him or hate him (John Pilger, that is) no one exposes the murky forces behind Suharto's 'Darling of the West' status like he does.

Chris

With all due respect Great Britian and Sweden have never been socialist states. They could best be described as Liberal Western Democracies with a government implementing few social policies. As in most of the Liberal Western, governments have some influence over economic activity and capital but none can be regarded as controlling as socialism requires. Neither of your examples ever controlled the means of production nor capital. While they may have had some influence in some sectors overwhelmingly their economies were dominated by capitalist activity.

Again your comparison of the semantic's is irrelevant. In the ideal socialist state there would be no need for elections. Today the alternatives offered in Liberal Democracies usually hold sway or the 'left leaning' parties, to become elected, have become far from socialist or have abandonded any socialist influence.

And Hitler was elected as a Socialist ... who went on to scrap elections.

Keith,

I think our disagreement must be because we must have different definitions of socialism. How do you define it? Do you regard communism and socialism as the same thing? What socialist policies did Hitler actually implement?