Socialism has failed. Now capitalism is bankrupt. So what... - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Negotiator
#13315713
ninurta wrote: Maybe we should leave capitalism and be communist like china. O wait, China gave up communism and is becoming increasingly capitalist because they realize they were wrong and capitalism is right.
Err nope. Completely wrong. The people ruling China are much more intelligent than that. They do not believe blindly in capitalism, or else they would be in a completely different and much worse shape.

Instead, they have figured out to make a developing country develop. And thats by simply working with what you have : low wages but high productivity, slowly accumulating more knowhow and slowly progressing to better, more hightech products. Playing your cards right results in a nice way to make a lot of exchange which, in turn, can be invested to reach even higher productivity, always keeping the wages behind.

Or in other words, the current ideology of economics works nicely for developing countries ... as long as you know what you're doing. Instead of just believing blindly in really stupid thing like "work hard to attract foreign investors" or "lower taxes for the rich" - China did NOT do this, and thats why they are a success.

They really use Keynes, not Friedman. They use economic intelligence, not blind belief in riddiculous ecconomic dogmas that never worked before and never will.

The problem is that countries like the USA and Germany are still using the same scheme, despite the fact that one cannot invest much into them - they are already at the top tier of productivity you can ever reach. So what they really should do is make their wage ratio high and maximize their local consumption. Thats the only way to more wealth they still have open.

Thats why China does the right thing, but the USA and Germany do not.



Kasu wrote: Because a small, backwards socialist country cannot survive in the face of a globally integrated capitalist economy.
If socialism cant compete, it cant compete. End of story.
User avatar
By RonPaulalways
#13316061
Neither socialism nor capitalism will ever work.

What can work is a compromise between the extremes.


A pure free market is better than this "mixed-economy" bullshit where states like California go bankrupt providing free health care to unemployed women like Octomom who sit at home having babies at taxpayers' expense, nations like Germany/France have endemic growth for 20 years, and the corporations get regulations put in place to keep competition out and get massive government bailouts to entrench their power.

A true free market is more equitable, fair and prosperous.

Instead of just believing blindly in really stupid thing like "work hard to attract foreign investors" or "lower taxes for the rich" - China did NOT do this, and thats why they are a success.


China has far less social welfare spending as a percentage of GDP than western nations, and its labor and environmental regulations are very lax. You ignore these key points to promote your misguided idea that social welfarism is better than a society based on the market and individual self-reliance.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13321907
Neither socialism nor capitalism will ever work.

Cuba exports doctors all over the world, has kept its population at the same level for about three decades, and lives within its means using organic agriculture and mandatory farm duties for all citizens.

It works.

We can't see that it works because we wear the ideological blinders of failure around our media-singed eyes. We can't see that it works because our elite want us to look somewhere else for answers. Like to Obama and the War on Terror.
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#13321916
I agree with Eauz. The article is weak. It is one thing to say the mixed economy is inevitable in the immediate and therefore all practical progressive politics must work within its framework. It is another thing to say Socialism has failed in general on account of the Bolshevik-Stalinist experience. It is also quite confused in its thinking about capitalism, 1980s neoliberalism is not the same as 1920s laissez-faire, etc.
User avatar
By Kasu
#13322257
Cuba.. It works.


Cuba is NOT socialist, never was socialist, not even a workers' state.
User avatar
By Cookie Monster
#13322260
Socialism has failed. Now capitalism is bankrupt. So what...
For now prostetutism, a more sincere representation of capitalism untill we have figured out a better system.
User avatar
By Kasu
#13322300
I don't see how "socialism has failed". The socialist experiment, 100 years ahead of its time, occurred in the most backwards country of Europe. In the period of a few decades, it transformed from a semi-feudal peasant run country into an industrial superpower. At the same time, its prolonged isolation due to socialism in one country degenerated the workers' state, creating a bureaucratic caste which sought to destroy socialism and become members of the ruling class.

Besides that, there are no other examples. The struggle is still on. The working class will gain the upper hand, very soon. There is no alternative system, it's socialism, or barbarism, and we're already living in the latter.
User avatar
By RonPaulalways
#13322751
Qatz wrote:Cuba exports doctors all over the world, has kept its population at the same level for about three decades, and lives within its means using organic agriculture and mandatory farm duties for all citizens.


And Cubans live on meager monthly rations, get told what their job will be by the state, and are prohibited from having their own business. What the fuck kind of society is that?
User avatar
By Kasu
#13322892
pff, I can do without having my own business.
User avatar
By Kropotkin
#13492237
Socialism has failed. Now capitalism is bankrupt. So what comes next?


Perhaps it's because of my political ignorance, but I don't see these as conflicting ideologies. Socialism concerns the organisation of society. Capitalism concerns the production of money. It seems one is forced to make a choice, but a constitutional monarchy like Sweden has a capitalist economy and has many socialist policies - national health care, strong labor laws, civil rights, environmental policy - and its citizens enjoy a high income and live a comfortable way of life.

Socialism and capitalism have failed in many places. Maybe we should analyse case by case before making sweeping jugdements. Not that I wouldn't like to see capitalism crashing down, but to say that it's time to nail its coffin seems premature.
By DanDaMan
#13492282
Cuba exports doctors all over the world, has kept its population at the same level for about three decades, and lives within its means using organic agriculture and mandatory farm duties for all citizens.

It works.
Mandatory labor works in many places... like prisons.
Also... "exports doctors"? Do "the people" openly subsidize the education of these doctors just so they can leave and make more money elsewhere in freer markets?
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13492521
Do "the people" openly subsidize the education of these doctors just so they can leave and make more money elsewhere in freer markets?

These doctors have been provided free of charge to countries that were lacking doctors like Venezuela (only had rich doctors for the rich) and Cuba (the US sent media and military, Cuba sent doctors).
By DanDaMan
#13492632
Quote:
Do "the people" openly subsidize the education of these doctors just so they can leave and make more money elsewhere in freer markets?

~These doctors have been provided free of charge to countries that were lacking doctors like Venezuela (only had rich doctors for the rich) and Cuba (the US sent media and military, Cuba sent doctors).
Your humanitarian example sucks donkey balls.
Cubans pay the price....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_Cuba wrote:Rationing in Cuba
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rationing in Cuba refers to the system of food distribution known in Cuba as the Libreta de Abastecimiento ("Supplies booklet"). The system establishes the rations each person is allowed to buy through that system, and the frequency of supplies.

There has been discussion about abolishing it. Currently, beef has been substituted by "a ground mixture of soy, beans, and meat", while potatoes are often rotten. Rationed rice is "small and of bad quality"; fish is "small and full of bones"; bath soap lacks perfume and easily disintegrates; the rationed bottle of detergent is "only good for washing dishes"; shoes "break after a few months of use".[1] On top of rationing, the average wage at the end of 2005 was 334 regular pesos per month ($16.70 per month) and average monthly pension was $9.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13493500
I meant to say that Cuban doctors were provided to Haiti free of charge.

While the USA provided armed military goons (to protect the West's friends: the Haitian slumlord elite) - and its media (because we love a good tragedy on TV).
By ninurta
#13681585
[quote"Negotiator"] Err nope. Completely wrong. The people ruling China are much more intelligent than that. They do not believe blindly in capitalism, or else they would be in a completely different and much worse shape.

Instead, they have figured out to make a developing country develop. And thats by simply working with what you have : low wages but high productivity, slowly accumulating more knowhow and slowly progressing to better, more hightech products. Playing your cards right results in a nice way to make a lot of exchange which, in turn, can be invested to reach even higher productivity, always keeping the wages behind. [/quote]
They're really lucky their one child policy will result in a dropping population. With the bubble they're building, they're going to need to get rid of alot of currency. A recession that is really big and bad is on its way for them. To call their policies "intelligent", maybe true from the standpoint of wanting to look robust, but they're not in the great shape you think they are. Think of the Great Economy during the earlier years of the Bush-Cheney Administration on steroids, an economic bubble on its way to bursting. Its going to be painful. And those poorly paid workers, they're going to revolt worse than they are now. If China wants to survive, its illadvised to continue on its current policies.

It's just reluctant to give up its socialist framework out of pride. And doesn't want to give its people more freedom. Its also taking away alot of its peoples base economy, agriculture, destroying farms to build more buildings, many of which become ghost towns because they aren't really needed nor are going to be bought.

Or in other words, the current ideology of economics works nicely for developing countries ... as long as you know what you're doing. Instead of just believing blindly in really stupid thing like "work hard to attract foreign investors" or "lower taxes for the rich" - China did NOT do this, and thats why they are a success.

They really use Keynes, not Friedman. They use economic intelligence, not blind belief in riddiculous ecconomic dogmas that never worked before and never will.

Yes, and we're seeing the beginning stages in China already, of why Keynes is wrong and Friedman is right. You didn't sense in my sarcasm, that China is changing and following western models because it knows it doesn't know what its doing. It will find out within the next few decades at the latest what its doing.
China is using the model of the United States when it went to the keynesian model. Yeah, and our economy has been going in the wrong direction ever since. Building bubbles and popping them.

The problem is that countries like the USA and Germany are still using the same scheme, despite the fact that one cannot invest much into them - they are already at the top tier of productivity you can ever reach. So what they really should do is make their wage ratio high and maximize their local consumption. Thats the only way to more wealth they still have open.

Thats why China does the right thing, but the USA and Germany do not.

They're all using keynesian economics, and its not working for any of them. If you think China's "starve the peasants with small wages and overwork them" is the right thing, then I guess the Chinese down the road might be able to convince you otherwise. As for us needing to make people be paid more, that's only going to strain our economy more. In fact, if China paid its people what they deserve, China's economy would be going downhill more quickly than its already heading toward.
By Kman
#13681664
Friedman was a believer of central banking and government controlled inflation, I would hardly call him some huge opponent of Keynes. The only real true opponent of Keynesian central planning is the Austrian school of economics and Friedman was not part of that.

If you ask me Friedman is a wolf in sheep's clothing, he is presented as some sort of ultra-capitalist that all the good right-wingers go to for guidance but in reality he was a central planner just like Keynes was and he was not a supporter of real free market capitalism.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#13681674
If you ask me Friedman is a wolf in sheep's clothing, he is presented as some sort of ultra-capitalist that all the good right-wingers go to for guidance but in reality he was a central planner just like Keynes was and he was not a supporter of real free market capitalism.

I prefer to think of him as a sheep in wolf's clothing. ;)
User avatar
By ralfy
#13682318
Thanks for sharing that.

We are looking at increasing money supply needed to finance increasing production and consumption of goods needed for continuous economic growth. With that, some have moved from making money by selling goods and services to making money by lending money. The result is a credit crunch, with more coming in the future.

More serious is a resource crunch, given global oil production relatively flat since 2006, and warnings from the U.S. military, Lloyd's of London, the IEA, and other groups of a drop in global oil production by 2015, likely in 2013. Since much of mass manufacturing and mechanized agriculture are dependent on oil (including petrochemicals), then this will lead to significant economic difficulties and shortages of various goods. And even with the use of other sources of energy, the IEA reports that we will likely see only a 9 pct increase in global energy production for the next three decades as demand may rise by around 2 pct per annum.

Finally, we are also now looking at the effects of climate change, including unusual droughts and floods which destroy crops and damage top soil. This, combined with environmental damage and depletion of other resources (e.g., fish stocks dropping by 40 pct the last few decades due to overfishing) and increasing population and resource demand per capita, will make matters worse.

With that, free market capitalism or even state capitalism will not be sustainable. At best, we will be forced to lower resource use significantly.

Well, it seemed to work that way when America inv[…]

Is Islam Right About Women?

Wrongun's basically, you implied 'they' are misogy[…]

Sigh... you're still misconstruing my beliefs, whi[…]

I did not know that Ter is Jewish. I thought that[…]