Joined: 28-Mar-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 309
QuoteReplyTopic: Communism or Capitalism Posted: 21-May-2006 at 08:59
...and why is it that every major communist nation left..............discounting Cuba as major of course........(basicaly still a left over lost colony of the former USSR)...is still either buying or stealing tech and trying to gain access to the funds and economic bases of the captalistic/free market societies......countries..........
the answer....the failure of communism as a political form of government....
and dont attempt obsfucation of communism with totalatarinism.because your state and China and Vietnam to a degree remain just that.........
The only major Communist country left is China. On which the US is totally dependent for financing.
.......and your point is? This in no way contradicts my statement above.
China's lending the US money (and supporting the US dollar in world markets) not the other way around.
.........redundency in verbal rhetoric is usualya sign of a failing arguement.
(Not that that has anything really to do with the superiority of capitalism over communism or vice versa. There are a lot more fundamental economic and psychological factors involved, including the competence of the respective administrations.)
........competence in what fashion? measureable economic parameters....failures of 5 year plans? supporting their political idealogies?
totalitarianism control vs. democrat institutions.......?
...and why is it that every major communist nation left..............discounting Cuba as major of course........(basicaly still a left over lost colony of the former USSR)...is still either buying or stealing tech and trying to gain access to the funds and economic bases of the captalistic/free market societies......countries..........
the answer....the failure of communism as a political form of government....
and dont attempt obsfucation of communism with totalatarinism.because your state and China and Vietnam to a degree remain just that.........
The only major Communist country left is China. On which the US is totally dependent for financing.
.......and your point is? This in no way contradicts my statement above.
You asserted that the communist countries left were 'trying to gain access to the funds' of other, capitalistic countries. That's true of course, because pretty well all countries, capitalist or communist, welcome investment from overseas. In your rhetoric however you failed to point out that it was no more true of communist countries than any other.
(In fact the only countries I can think of that have been opposed to foreign investment have been extremist ones like North Korea, Cambodia at one time, and of course the Stalinist communist ones.)
China's lending the US money (and supporting the US dollar in world markets) not the other way around.
.........redundency in verbal rhetoric is usualya sign of a failing arguement.
As is changing the subject. The fact that essentially I said the same thing twice does not invalidate the point (neither of course does it strengthen it).
I'm not in the least surprised you chose to ignore it.
(Not that that has anything really to do with the superiority of capitalism over communism or vice versa. There are a lot more fundamental economic and psychological factors involved, including the competence of the respective administrations.)
........competence in what fashion? measureable economic parameters....failures of 5 year plans? supporting their political idealogies?
totalitarianism control vs. democrat institutions.......?
As for competence, building up the infrastructure would do for a start. It's improving in China, deteriorating in the US. Outmanoeuvring the US in gaining secure access to oil supplies would be another. Pursuing sensible fiscal and budgetary strategies would be another. Increasing the internal supply of energy through hydroelectric installations would be yet another.
As for measurable economic parameters, GDP growth, growth in income per capita, increase in energy availability, budgetary restraint....
For the failure of five-year-plans - what's failed in China recently?
And the political things are irrelevant to the competence of the administratios.
However, individual freedom has been decreasing in the US, and to at least some extent increasing in China.
There is a also a well proven link between social injustice and crime. That's why US jails are overflowing.
Define social injustice.Inequality is a beautiful thing because it gives people the drive to better their lives by either producing a product or service that people want or by working hard to put food on the table.If you make everyone equal economically, then nobody will have the incentive to work because they wont get anything out of it.
The whole notion of do it for the community has never worked before, so dont try it on me (I assume you know a thing or two about historical debacles related to that notion).
Yeah, as long as they are rich. But it is somehow OK to label poor people 'losers not worthy of surviving'.
Not at all.What you appear not to understand is that free market capitalism is the most effective means to lift the poor out of poverty.After all, in order to make money those greedy business owners must produce a product or service desirable by a wide array of individuals.This leads to better products being produced more and more efficiently, cutting costs and making products that were once luxuries available to the masses.Thats why your average family below the poverty line in the US has a car, washing machine, television and home. Indeed, your average middle class family today lives far better than kings 150 years ago.
All government intervention does is hurt the poor.For example, Medicare and Medicaid have driven up healthcare costs for lower-income families.In 1960 lower-income families on average visited the doctor 5 times a year.Today, they are lucky to visit once.In 1960 the average hospital visit cost merely a days pay.Today it can cost thousands of dollars.
Given life expectancy statistics, social security redistributes wealth from black men to white women.Those who do collect social security lose money since the amount they receive is less (adjusted for inflation) than what they put in.The most alarming trend resulting from such programs is the ridiculously low rate of savings by American families.
I could go on and on.
Japan was very successful indeed, until economist-reading-IMF-market-fundamentalists-in-wall-street- payroll f**ked up East Asian economy.
The IMF is run by a bunch of Keynesians who enjoy impoverishing countries by telling their governments to inflate the currency and spend like mad.They are certainly not market fundamentalists.
In any case, Japan is in no way a free-market success story. There are no poor people in Japan. Their economy has strong government control, and workers are well protected. They have a very low GINI index (this is a measure of economical injustice, the higher it is, the greater the difference between the rich and the poor).
Which is why Japan has been in recession for over 15 years.That recession was caused by the Japanese central bank inflating the currency, feeding malinvestments and one heck of a bubble.Government taxing and spending has only lengthened that painful recession.
You are the one who claims free market will always be better than any other system, I do not claim Communist countries will always perform better than Capitalist ones. So you have to explain why countries with free markets have failed so miserably all around the world.
Well, youll find that countries with freer markets are far more prosperous than those without.Compare Hong Kong, which was dirt-poor in the 1950s to Nigeria or any other socialist country.The US has found prosperity because of its relative openness economically (Though that is fast-deteriorating today).China began to boom after it opened parts of its economy to capitalism.Europe is stagnating today because of their welfare systems.
I personally think that for different countries different systems will give optimal results. A free market may be good for Singaporean or Hong Kong economy, because they are tiny trade hubs. It is a disaster for most other countries, especially not industrialised ones.
Give me an example of where a regulated market has brought prosperity and Ill throw you a cookie.
Soviet-style central command economy is ideal for quickly industrialising a country and developing the infrastructure if that country has enough resources.
Oh thats rich.Are you saying starving whole segments of your population is the way to find prosperity?
In any case, it was proven by economists (Joseph Stiglitz got his nobel for this proof) that external agents (e.g. state) can improve the performance of a market economy. Markets without external influence are optimal only when access to information is not limited. Which is NEVER in real life markets, since it is simply impossible to know everything about the economy.
In developed countries information access is relatively better, so they can afford to remove some government influence, but in third world countries free market just doesn't work in most cases, because information access is very poor. So if you try to industrialise a traditional country through free market, it will take centuries like it did in the UK. Except that today there are many already industrialised countries who will outsell your indigenous industries, so it will never happen.
It only took the UK 50 years and the US an even shorter amount of time.Taiwan did it within 20 years thanks to its relatively open economy.
This also explains why practically ALL countries have mixed economies and why countries with good government control of economy like Japan and Korea perform well. Pure capitalism doesn't work. Historical examples abound. Note that I don't even mention the capital's tendency to monopolise. Pure capitalist economy is a pipe dream, no more realistic than Marx's end of history Communist utopia.
Give me an example of when a pure market economy has failed?
In reality, only people who advocate free market are the rich people from Wall Street. The same 500 people who own more than 3 billions. And their ass kissers. They rule the Western 'democracies', and push their agenda.
Give me an example of when a pure market economy has failed?
Other than the mob, or possibly Neolithic economies, there's never been an example of a pure market economy, so how would one give an example of it failing?
It only took the UK 50 years and the US an even shorter amount of time. Taiwan did it within 20 years thanks to its relatively open economy.
The Taiwanese economy was a command economy under a single party state, up until very recently. It wasn't until 1990 that private banks were established in Taiwan, for instance; not until 1996 that it stopped being a one-party state. It achieved the "Taiwan Miracle" in the context of one of the most interventionist economies in the world, outside the communist states. Dozens of key industries - including all financial industries, airlines, steel, salt, oil, and many others, were 100% controlled by the ruling party (which is, at the moment, the richest political party on the planet, bar none).
-When it comes to capitalism the USA is the only nation that has succeeded and it's far from being a pure capitalist nation. In spite of it's success it's crashed two times(1927, 1987) and external forces have been required to rebuild it (WWII, digital revolution). The only reason why the US isn't a backwater country now is because of it's position. It has a large landmass, it's neighbours have rarely been aggressive, neither did they industrialize as quickly either, and there's a big ocean between them and any other continent. You cannot determine capitalism to be successful if you only have one example and it's position is unique. A society fuelled by greed cannot survive for long without being in a unique position like the US. Once a corporation's power becomes greater than that of the state it effectively seizes to exist, there are so many examples of corporate pressure influencing legislation. I'm not saying that this couldn't happen in a socialist country but the only way in which that could happen was if the people holding power were involved in the corporation or very, very corrupt. In the US the government doesn't hold the power.
-I'm equally opposed to a planned economy because it breeds inefficiency and you cannot predict the future, rendering the concept obsolete.
-An economy where the government can intervene but will not hamper the day to day business is the best option in order to balance the scales. Like in Norway.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Once a corporation's power becomes greater than that of the state it effectively seizes to exist, there are so many examples of corporate pressure influencing legislation. I'm not saying that this couldn't happen in a socialist country but the only way in which that could happen was if the people holding power were involved in the corporation or very, very corrupt.
Well, in the Soviet economy, power started out in political hands but it ultimately ended up in the hands of industrial firms. Technically they were part of the bureaucracy but practically speaking, they were just massive corporations with monopolies.
If Ford, GE, Walmart, Exxon, GM, and a few others wiped out all competition, put together an organization to divvy up the spoils and coordinate with each other, and relegated the government to making sure everyone played along, you'd have a system that looked more or less the exact same as the late Soviet system, for all practical purposes. Imo, that's more or less what's been happening.
There's an interesting difference between the US now and the late Soviet Union (I agree with you in general).
You quote Ford, GE, Walmart, Exxon and GM. It's noteworthy though that three of them are actually in trouble, or losing out to competition. There was no equivalent in the old Soviet Union to Toyota, Renault-Nissan, BP, Royal Dutch/Shell, Sony, News Corporation....
I'm not sure exactly what that difference presages, but it certainly is a difference.
Both economic ideas are great, but the people makes the ideal system corrupted.
In theory, there's absolutely nothing wrong about communism. Everyone are equal, classless and people work together with no personal agenda and gets the job done. There's no crime, there's no violence... people live in the perfect order set by merciful government.
The problem is people. Many, if not all, want to become superior than others. As Napoleon in animal farm once said, "Everyone's equal. It's just that some are more equal than others." Mankind's nature of jealousy and their sincere will to become better than others would prevent any classless utopia that Karl Marx predicted. Granted, some may be kind and sincere, but the problem is that much of world's population want wealth, freedom and popularity. Knowing that people would get same wage regardless of how much they work... it is natural for the workers to get lazy. So what if they produced 3 AK-47 instead of 7 as requested? They would still get the same wage. Who cares if I got 20% in the Chemistry 30? I would get same apartments with similar wage as the person who got 98%. It's not worth it...
But that does not make capitalism any better... in theory. Their idea is simple. You work harder, you contribute more, you make more accomplishment... who get the reward. If I worked hard to find a new invention that would solve the food shortage, I will become sickenly rich. If I get over 95% in History class, I would be most likely be chosen by the University of Seoul, compared to another kid who got 78%.
But now, the tension between the rich and poor would rise. People with no wealth, intelligence or other talents would live in a poor condition. They have the chance to become the elite, but the chance is highly unlikely. The elites would ensure that their kids get the best education, best food, best health care, etc. Picture the Industrial Revolution in Britain. The child labor, and the ruthless condition of workers... the society would become corrupted, and the tension between less fortunate and fortunate ones would wage war... poors would have quantity, and rich would have quality. Plus, the complete freedom of people in commerical trades could include harmful drugs, dangerous weapons, and other possible threats that could hurt and kill people.
But overall, capitalism should be better since it actually meets the goal. If I had a choice, I would have a balanced mixed economy... which often provides best choice.
But now, the tension between the rich and poor would rise. People with no wealth, intelligence or other talents would live in a poor condition. They have the chance to become the elite, but the chance is highly unlikely. The elites would ensure that their kids get the best education, best food, best health care, etc. Picture the Industrial Revolution in Britain. The child labor, and the ruthless condition of workers... the society would become corrupted, and the tension between less fortunate and fortunate ones would wage war... poors would have quantity, and rich would have quality. Plus, the complete freedom of people in commerical trades could include harmful drugs, dangerous weapons, and other possible threats that could hurt and kill people.
But overall, capitalism should be better since it actually meets the goal. If I had a choice, I would have a balanced mixed economy... which often provides best choice.
Nice post. I think then, based on what you correctly described, that we will always have a cycle where one system is destroyed or at least eventually it gives way to the other slowly and so on.
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
Comunism is nothing else that the other side of Capitalism. They are cause and effect.
When Capitalism run wild, Comunism (it's own Frankenstein's monster) is reborn and take power.
With inhuman bosses and investors that are concerned more about style and money than people, Comunism will always be there, just waiting to strike back.
Have any one read Marx? What else does he talks about but Capitalism?
Marx' theory of communism is too theological. For instance, Marx believed that the workers would all rise up and "break the chain". They would unite and overthrow the rich, and wealthy people. The wealth would be equally shared by everyone...
Obviously, he should have studied history more.
Even when commoners united to revolt against the nobles, they almost always failed? Why? They are easily beaten back by professional troops, and the riot scatters since they don't want to sacrifice their life for the goal to be achieved. They want to gain something from the riots, and they will not die for the others. (Of course, there are some exceptions... but it's true in general, because people are selfish.)
No nobles were beaten by the commoners until French Revolution? This was not because overhwhelming number of commoners defeated the French troops and arrested the king. They were successful because unlike previous revolts, the middle class organized and led the efficient and successful riots. Without the help of educated and influential men from middle class... French Revolution would never have been successful.
Communism failed, because it was wrong from the beginning.
Their
ideology of equality is totally absurd, it's simply against human
nature and it's entirely unrealistic. Can you imagine a society without
social classes? Who would lead it, etc?
Socialism also doesn't work. Why?
First, proletariat isn't an adequate class for ruling. I think, I needn't explain it any further.
The
other problem is the economy: when everything is in common property,
the system functions for only a relative short period. State owns the
company, you buy the things cheep and you don't have a high salary.
It's OK, apart from the low living standard.
The problem comes with two factors:
1.
Infrastructure. There are no taxes and there isn't any profit, besides
prices are low. The state won't have the money for developing, only
maintaining.
2. Amortisation. What happens when the
"nationalised" goods begin to lose their value? From what sources can
the state have them repaired?
That is why the system really
worked - for a time. When they began to develop, they automatically ran
out of money, had to borrow and of course they got into debts, etc.
Two more things:
3. Bad mentality. When the company doesn't belong to you, you aren't
responsible for it. You get your salary whether you work good or bad.
You won't work well
4. Dictatorship and dependence from another state. Neither is good.
The
"right" ideology for reducing social differences was social democracy,
which finally won in the West and was destructed in the East. It was
better, because it maintained democracy and profit, which ensured the
future, unlike socialism.
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