Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
QuoteReplyTopic: State vs. Market Posted: 02-Apr-2006 at 08:51
Hi,
Also, I'm a bite sad this thread evolved into a "was Russia
strong" topic, but here is what I've grasped about this issue in
the very valuable book of Francois Bluche titled "the enlighted
despotism": Russia by the mid-18th century was an extremely
impressive power but in a 17th century fashion. The steel
industry Catherine the Great developped was the same (only
privatised) as the one Peter I and Elizabeth of Russia created
according to a backward-ish system based on protectionist
theory and partly slave-like workforce.
The ideal of Catherine, Frederick, Joseph II and cie was not
Georges III's England the European Superpower of the time nor
even Louis XV's France but the Sun-King realm and way of
development . Of course this wasn't a bad choice per se as
their countries were closer from 1640's France than from 1780's
England. Hence their very power proves what their
weaknesses are.
Concidering the Russian victories against Kazan, the Ottoman,
Poland or Sweden, even though they testify the rising strenght
of the Czars, they've been won against second or third rank
powers. And for 1812-3 Russian victory upon Napoleon, one
couldn't argue the burn-it-all-so-they-won't-have-anything-to-
eat strategy is proof of a major power behaviour...
Bye.
Concidering the Russian victories against Kazan, the Ottoman, Poland or Sweden, even though they testify the rising strenght of the Czars, they've been won against second or third rank powers.
I didn't want to continue this subject any more, but I have to react now. Maharbbal, you shouldn't minimize Russian enemies (and victories). For example Sweden. However in the begining of the 18th c. Swedish army was recognized as the best European army, it lost with Russia. Or Ottoman Empire - even thought its offensive power was broken in 1683, it was still a powerfull country in the 18th c.. You also forgot about Prussia, which was defeated by Russia in the 18th c. and only thanks to the liking of the new Tsar for Prussia this country survived the war with Russia.
Originally posted by Maharbbal
And for 1812-3 Russian victory upon Napoleon, one couldn't argue the burn-it-all-so-they-won't-have-anything-to- eat strategy is proof of a major power behaviour...
Good Russian strategy shows that the country had not only numerous army, but also talented commanders. IMHO it is not important how sombody wins, but if he wins.
BTW, sombody can blame Napoleon that he won many battles thanks to better strategy and tactic .
My belief is;The economy of the states wouldn't be successful without private entrepreneurship...Because working in the institutions belonging to the state totally,and being under the state administration, people, whose tendencies are more for working for themselves, wouldn't be efficient working for the state and would strive to make the profit for themselves, corruption would be born..And as they have their private chances, they would strive to make more profit, as they are getting it for themselves.
Therefore, the first era of liberalists in economy, whose insight was small companies,shops,entrepreneurships would be founded together with state as a regulating and balancing position, was born...Things would have been nice this way, but this ideology later on turned into capitalism and we all found today's economic world in front of us...Huge capitals, big cartels, dominating multi-national companies and institutions in every sector...
In today's world, I think state shall be inside things...At least it shall own institutions, buildings and structures with critical importance, and shall make balancing interventions on the economy to protect the poor and prevent the dominance of capitalist economical acts.
Edited by Kapikulu - 19-Sep-2006 at 09:30
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;
I like your vision of a Golden Economic Age. But I'm not sure it ever existed.
Considering the state's role in the economy, I'm conviced it should strickly stick to what it does best.E. g. sending satelites in the galaxy
I believe it existed in several places, just for a few decades or so probably in 19th century.
As I said in my post, a state-based economy can't be successful due to human's greeds and tendency to work only for their benefits....
So, I believe, small-scale private entrepreneurship shall be the core of economic system, while the state shall do the regulation duties to prevent unjust distribution of profits and stop liberalism to go to capitalism phase.
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum