Communism and socialism can prosper if managed properly. Democracy could probably take care of that–of course, we would rely on democracy to establish it to begin with.
It is an interesting phenomenon, though, that Communism has never taken root in a country having any real history of democracy. Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba: all of them ruled by despots even before the Revolution. I guess Zimbabwe would be an exception, depending on how democratic you consider Ian Smith’s Rhodesia to have been.
Communism can only ever be established by revolution because most people in a democratic society would probably vote against it.[/quote]
Social Democracy is a movement founded to achieve socialism trough democratic means.
All Democracies shifted more and more in the socialist direction if 100% state spending is pure communism and 0% state spending is pure capitalism.
Though people think they are against socialim they want the government to do more and more for them which does of course lead to the same result.
Do you understand the concept of trade deficit? Our GNP means nothing considering we export 10% of what we import. Do you think this might have something to do with the collapsing Dollar?
Communism and socialism can prosper if managed properly. Democracy could probably take care of that–of course, we would rely on democracy to establish it to begin with.[/quote]
The problem is that neither socialism nor communism CAN be managed properly.
That was shown by van Mises as early as 1922 so why insist that it is possible if it is in fact impossible on a practical and on a theoretical level?
You should also be thankful for every millionaire because they can actually save a large part of their income and tomorrows wealth is created by saving and investing capital, not by consuming it.
Though people think they are against socialim they want the government to do more and more for them which does of course lead to the same result.[/quote]
Or in other words,
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”
That was shown by van Mises as early as 1922 so why insist that it is possible if it is in fact impossible on a practical and on a theoretical level? [/quote]
Oh, Orion, how could you possibly assume that an American dilettante communist would have even heard of Austria’s greatest economist, let alone accept his theories?
I’m reminded of the old story of Fidel Castro, shortly after seizing power in Cuba, holding a meeting to appoint his cabinet. “Okay,” Fidel said, “who here is an economist?”
Only Che Guevara held up his hand, eyeing his other comrades a bit scornfully.
“Fine,” Castro said. “Che, you run the central bank.”
Afterwards, one of the other members of the meeting approached Guevara and said, “I never knew you were an economist.”
Che, a bit sheepishly now, replied, “I’m not. I thought he said, ‘who here is a [i]communist!’”
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Do you understand the concept of trade deficit? Our GNP means nothing considering we export 10% of what we import. Do you think this might have something to do with the collapsing Dollar?
Communism and socialism can prosper if managed properly. Democracy could probably take care of that–of course, we would rely on democracy to establish it to begin with.[/quote]
From Wikipedea:
Gross National Product (GNP) is the total value of final goods and services produced in a year by a country’s nationals (including profits from capital held abroad). The profits from a Mercedes-Benz factory in the USA would count towards German GNP.
The USA’s GNP, GDP and more:
Show me how that is not working. Is it because CNN says so? Some ass hat in a suit who claims to be an expert says the American economy is in trouble? According to what. We have a trade deficit and were still far and away the most economically powerful country in the world. China is 6th.
I’ll make this real easy. Show me one single example where communism/socialism has worked and I will concede your point with no further argument. One place that’s all. Communism has been tried and tried it has never worked, because it cannot.
I’ll make this real easy. Show me one single example where communism/socialism has worked and I will concede your point with no further argument. One place that’s all. Communism has been tried and tried it has never worked, because it cannot.
[/quote]
Hello, China! Now that they are taking advantage of world markets they will set the standard. Ironic that the US trades with them but not Cuba who, in my opinion is guilty of far less crimes against humanity. I predict China will remain a communistic economy for a long time as long as the disparity between the people doesn’t grow any further. Whether they will turn to a more representative form of government remains to be seen.
BTW, GNP doesn’t matter when there is a trade deficit because at the end of the day 90% of our money from overseas trade is overseas–in effect, weakening the dollar. When dollars become more plentiful in overseas markets they become cheaper (a la supply and demand) which means it costs us more in foreign currency to buy them back. Thus, you can imagine, the greater the deficit they worse our dollar will do against our trade partner’s currency. If we traded equally (meaning with respect to the value of the currencies exchanged) then the currencies would be on more equal footing. We are in trouble in that respect I do believe–better start buying Euros while they’re still “cheap”.
I’ll make this real easy. Show me one single example where communism/socialism has worked and I will concede your point with no further argument. One place that’s all. Communism has been tried and tried it has never worked, because it cannot.
Hello, China! Now that they are taking advantage of world markets they will set the standard. Ironic that the US trades with them but not Cuba who, in my opinion is guilty of far less crimes against humanity. I predict China will remain a communistic economy for a long time as long as the disparity between the people doesn’t grow any further. Whether they will turn to a more representative form of government remains to be seen.
BTW, GNP doesn’t matter when there is a trade deficit because at the end of the day 90% of our money from overseas trade is overseas–in effect, weakening the dollar. When dollars become more plentiful in overseas markets they become cheaper (a la supply and demand) which means it costs us more in foreign currency to buy them back. Thus, you can imagine, the greater the deficit they worse our dollar will do against our trade partner’s currency. If we traded equally (meaning with respect to the value of the currencies exchanged) then the currencies would be on more equal footing. We are in trouble in that respect I do believe–better start buying Euros while they’re still “cheap”.[/quote]
Ummm…China has adopted a capitolist model for their economy. You know the free market. We discussed this very fact a few posts ago. Hence why it has blown up the way it has. They abandoned the communist state controled economy because it did not work. Since then I would concider their government just plain oppresive since they have an upper and middle class and well as a gigantic poor population. Besides, would you really want to live there?
Who has a communist economic model that works?
Ironic that the US trades with them but not Cuba who, in my opinion is guilty of far less crimes against humanity. [/quote]
Do not under estimate the evil of Fidel. My entire family has finally escaped Cuba, save for a few cousins. While they were there we literally supported them. If it we not for us, they would have starved to death. Even the Cubans not typically accept the Cuban Peso as currency; thay want dollars. As for why we trade with China, I consider it yet another Nixon gaff. What an asshole that guy was.
Ironic that the US trades with them but not Cuba who, in my opinion is guilty of far less crimes against humanity.
Do not under estimate the evil of Fidel. My entire family has finally escaped Cuba, save for a few cousins. While they were there we literally supported them. If it we not for us, they would have starved to death. Even the Cubans not typically accept the Cuban Peso as currency; thay want dollars. As for why we trade with China, I consider it yet another Nixon gaff. What an asshole that guy was.
[/quote]
Hello, China! There are no privately held means of production–i.e., COMMUNISM. That is the only difference between a communistic and free enterprise economy.
Ironic that the US trades with them but not Cuba who, in my opinion is guilty of far less crimes against humanity.
Do not under estimate the evil of Fidel. My entire family has finally escaped Cuba, save for a few cousins. While they were there we literally supported them. If it we not for us, they would have starved to death. Even the Cubans not typically accept the Cuban Peso as currency; thay want dollars. As for why we trade with China, I consider it yet another Nixon gaff. What an asshole that guy was.
Hello, China! There are no privately held means of production–i.e., COMMUNISM. That is the only difference between a communistic and free enterprise economy.
[/quote]
Hello China! NOT!
Please note the part the states that 70% of China’s GDP is in the PRIVATE SECTOR
Ironic that the US trades with them but not Cuba who, in my opinion is guilty of far less crimes against humanity.
Do not under estimate the evil of Fidel. My entire family has finally escaped Cuba, save for a few cousins. While they were there we literally supported them. If it we not for us, they would have starved to death. Even the Cubans not typically accept the Cuban Peso as currency; thay want dollars. As for why we trade with China, I consider it yet another Nixon gaff. What an asshole that guy was.
Hello, China! There are no privately held means of production–i.e., COMMUNISM. That is the only difference between a communistic and free enterprise economy.
Hello China! NOT!
Please not the part the states that 70% of China’s GDP is in the PRIVATE SECTOR
[/quote]
Plenty of millionaires in China. All the growth is private sector.
I think Lifticus is really confused on this issue.
China is still a totalitarian regime but they are not practicing communism as their sole economic model anymore.
Please note the part the states that 70% of China’s GDP is in the PRIVATE SECTOR
[/quote]
Taken from your wiki-link.
“What is socialism and what is Marxism? We were not quite clear about this in the past. Marxism attaches utmost importance to developing the productive forces. We have said that socialism is the primary stage of communism and that at the advanced stage the principle of from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs will be applied. This calls for highly developed productive forces and an overwhelming abundance of material wealth. Therefore, the fundamental task for the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces. The superiority of the socialist system is demonstrated, in the final analysis, by faster and greater development of those forces than under the capitalist system. As they develop, the people’s material and cultural life will constantly improve. One of our shortcomings after the founding of the People’s Republic was that we didn’t pay enough attention to developing the productive forces. Socialism means eliminating poverty. Pauperism is not socialism, still less communism.” [2]
Also, "private sector" does not mean privately owned--the government still mandates the productive means but have given more responsibilities to private [i]households[/i]. All this means is that the employees are not employed by the state and thus need to remain productive in order to get paid. It does not imply private ownership--on the contrary is "owned by the people".
They are not FREE ENTERPRISE in the actual sense of the term.
BTW, anyone can create a wiki-page which means the source as information is no good unless you can back it up with other valid sources.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Also, “private sector” does not mean privately owned–the government still mandates the productive means but have given more responsibilities to private households. All this means is that the employees are not employed by the state and thus need to remain productive in order to get paid. It does not imply private ownership–on the contrary is “owned by the people”.
They are not FREE ENTERPRISE in the actual sense of the term.
BTW, anyone can create a wiki-page which means the source as information is no good unless you can back it up with other valid sources.[/quote]
Bottom line. China is not a centristic controled, communist economy. It is not, period. What the government controls is broke. The majority of the money is in the private sector. China’s economy damn near doubled when they aquired Hong Kong which does retain it’s autonomy from the control of the Republic, but shares the economy; at the moment anyway
“What is socialism and what is Marxism? We were not quite clear about this in the past. Marxism attaches utmost importance to developing the productive forces. We have said that socialism is the primary stage of communism and that at the advanced stage the principle of from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs will be applied. This calls for highly developed productive forces and an overwhelming abundance of material wealth. Therefore, the fundamental task for the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces. The superiority of the socialist system is demonstrated, in the final analysis, by faster and greater development of those forces than under the capitalist system. As they develop, the people’s material and cultural life will constantly improve. One of our shortcomings after the founding of the People’s Republic was that we didn’t pay enough attention to developing the productive forces. Socialism means eliminating poverty. Pauperism is not socialism, still less communism.”[/quote]
First of all, the quote you lifted does not refute the idea that China is employing the private sector to improve productivity - it says the opposite.
Second, if what you said was true w/r/t China’s production not being in the hands of the private sector, why would there be a need for Unions in China?
If the government controlled the means of production like you suggest, there would be no need for Unions to organize to challenge management for better working conditions - and yet China recently passed laws trying to give Unions a better position.
Unions are a free-market function - they use contracting power to get what they want from the people who own the businesses. If the state were the de facto owners of the business, there would be no need for Unions.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Could you imagine a system where everyone got paid the same no matter what (except maybe based on some sort of rank and seniority to instill some sort of value in hard work and loyalty, etc.[/quote]
Yeah, it would be like when I worked a unionized job for the city.
Everybody slacked, there was a complete lack of leadership in the crew, we spent most of our time avoiding the public and doing just enough work to get by. No reward for hard work, no punishment for shit work… that entire summer was pretty much soul-destroying.
[/quote]
Really? Is there any inkling of that anywhere in history? Can you name just one communist country who’s citizen have enjoyed more individual liberty and abundance than we do in Western capitalist nations?
[/quote]
there has never existed a communist nation only nations which aspire to one day be communist. americans do enjoy civil liberties but we cannot ignore the fact that the government has violated those civil liberties on many occasions. there are socialist countries which are more democratic than the U.S.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
You know, this is getting me all emotional. Do you know how many people have died because of communism and communist governments? It’s in the millions, not hundreds, not thousands, but millions. Do you know how many people continue to suffer under communist dictatorships?
Why don’t you ask the North Koreans how much freedom they have. Or how about the Cubans, and the Tibetans? The idea has behind communism has been proven wrong over and over again to the detriment of many. It doesn’t work, it can’t work and it won’t work. Why don’t you take wreckless and move to Cuba or North Korea? Then you guys can, if you are allowed to comminicate, tell us how great it is.[/quote]
no one has died because of communism. communism is a social economic theory in which the workers control the means of production, in a true communist nation there would be no “state” meaning no government agencies which hold power over the people, which is why there has never existed a communist country.
Ideally under communism, the people would organize themselves in order to have decision making processes concerning their city, state, country, etc. For this reason a lot of people argue that communism is more democratic than capitalism.
this is why capitalism is dangerous. because it makes the worker think only about themselves as an individual. why do you only worry about your welfare? what about the rest of your country or the rest of the world. why work as an individual to attain individual wealth when you can work as a community to attain the wealth of the community. Please do not think only of yourself. work for the betterment of everyone not just yourself.
Communism and socialism can prosper if managed properly. Democracy could probably take care of that–of course, we would rely on democracy to establish it to begin with.
It is an interesting phenomenon, though, that Communism has never taken root in a country having any real history of democracy. Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba: all of them ruled by despots even before the Revolution. I guess Zimbabwe would be an exception, depending on how democratic you consider Ian Smith’s Rhodesia to have been.
Communism can only ever be established by revolution because most people in a democratic society would probably vote against it.[/quote]
cuba is not a communist country as there still exists a “state”. so for the sake of argument lets call cuba a socialist country. the democracy in this socialist country is something to that should be envied by U.S. democracy.
