[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
What is an example of a country in which communism/socialism/Marxism has worked?
Not trying to be a smart ass, honestly wondering what yall have to say, because most would say it has failed in every situation.
Western Europe and Canada are examples of functioning socialism.
Cuba’s standard of living has grown exponentially since the United States Western Capitalist regime fell. While low by ‘first world’ standards, it is still richer than the country I am from originally, and most Central American nations, which have followed the, Capitalist Western model.
The Soviet Union was an industrial super power, that was a counterbalance to the USA for nearly 100 years. The economic and industrial capacity of the Soviet Union was without comparison in the world. The Soviet Union also attracted immigrants from all over the world, many from ‘Capitalist’ countries.
Germany under National Socialism grew from hyperinflation to exponential industrial growth, from a broken pauper to industrial superpower in around 10 years.
Falangism, (Spanish Right Wing Socialism), led the country from rural backwardness, to what has been called ‘The Spanish Miracle,’ into a nation of Western European living standards and income.
Yugoslavia was a more model socialist state, with growing industrial capacity, transparent borders with Western European Socialist states (and the people actually came back), as well as with high standard of living. This lasted until ethnic tensions boiled over in the early 90s, and two of the former republics engaged in all out war.
If you look at Slovenia, there standard of living is highly reflective of the Forum Yugoslavian Republic.
China is another example of the robustness of socialism/communism with an insular market economy, it was so successful Capitalist Western Hong Kong opted to join. The Chinese growth rate has been unparralled despite the communist inefficiency stereotypes.
A better questoion would be, when has “Capitalist/Western/Smithism” worked?
Define what you mean by ‘failure in every situation.’ In what way did it fail?
[/quote]
-
Is that why Sarkozy is pressing to end the 35 hour french work week and is fretting over productivity drops? Is that why sweeden, the one time bastion of socialism is probably more free market than the US? http://www.american.com/archive/2008/february-02-08/look-to-sweden
-
Russias Industrialization was impossible without the west. Do you think they pulled infrastructure out of their ass? No, the state paid top dollar in confiscated money post bolshevik and red+white internal struggle to Foreign consultants. Mainly American and Germans to develop infrastructure, and educate engineers etc. Similar to contemporary China, profitting of anothers research. Not to metion the abolition of the kulaks and widespread famines for acheivement of this goal. Similar to today, most of the state revune came from oil exports (didnt matter if it was capitalist or communist), which left it without a hedge against commodity backlash. Furthermore, the HDI , or Human Development Index consistantly rated living standards behind that of western countries. But everyone being poor is better than some right?
I am not going to be completley one sided however. The Gosplans followed the correct procedure for developing an economy whether it is capitalist or socialst. IE agriculture revolution, heavy industry, light industry, retail and finance. The state refusing to give up control however made continual planning an unberable task wrought with inefficiency as expansino continued. Ie buidling a house on sand. This is where market based reforms would have been helpful and as you can see by China, Vietnam, South Korea and others who initally started out with a more centrally planned economy, they didnt start to see real progress until the government relaxed its stranglehold on industry. Communism is best left to small social niches, tribes. Not societies. With such a heavy hand, the market does not react to surplus or shortfall and you have chaos. Eventually Soviet citizens resorted to bartering amongst each other, hmm what does this sound like, bt the basis of capitalism.
Germanys growth would have been unsustainable unless they conquered the world. A great majority of it was resource theft from conquered nations, as well as having a great deal of their debt forgiven post versailles treaty. Following this forgiveness of debt and eventual currency stabilization, foreign direct investment started to flow in. So no, socialism was not the cause.
I will ask my uncle about Spain specifically because his father was an ambassador for their government.
Out of Chinas output 28.4% had come from the state sector last year (The Economist Now 14th issue). Coincidentally the period of growht that china enjoys coincides directly with its allowance to market reforms. This is similar to other East Asian countries that were indoctrinated into state control and saw their economies wither until private ownership, property rights and other capitalist notions started to take effect. None of these are full capitalist yet, but its obvious where their success is attributable to.
I can keep writing but I am sure you will have a response and I am quite tired.
