Contrarian said:
While very often, progress corrupts, the simple fact is that many of these people would have starved immediately in their communist society. Please read "China, Inc." by Ted C. Fishman which clearly illustrates that capitalism even in it's diluted form has raised the standard of living for tens of millions of otherwise destitute communist. It doesn't take an economist to see that communism is a dismal failure resulting in more suffering, demotivation and poverty than capatilism. Scandanavian capitalism works because it combines the best of all worlds. There is ZERO poverty in Norway, Sweden and Denmark with cradle to the grave medical, social services and education while promoting free enterprise and personal achievement.
I think you're confused as to what communism actually is. China, along with the USSR, were socialist countries, meaning the gov't runs the economy. This leads to the nature and type of gov't being very important. And I don't know about you, but a vanguard or Mao Zedong running the economy does not sound too promising lol. I support democratic socialism in its purist sense, that the people vote on their gov't and it in turns runs the economy in the people's favor. Communism has never existed, in fact, it is a long ways off. Socialism, where the gov't runs the economy, is simply state regulated capitalism, thus making the transition to socialism from capitalism quite easy. In the Scandinavian region which you bless so heavily, we see very socialistic gov't's, with heavy gov't regulation. In Europe, many, many countries have socialistic 'tendencies', shall we say, but none, as of yet, have completely elevated out of the shackles of capitalism. Sweden, Norway, and others are steadily advancing, though. Perhaps we share common support of socialism?
Contrarian said:
Capitalism has given this country's workers the highest standard of living in the history of the world. People are given more opportunities than they would have if left on there own working communal farms for the glory of the state. You are a very bright person but you are totally blind to this.
I don't think I am. Let us look at countries which, presently, live up to the 'dream' of capitalists, that is, very very little state regulation. You've got Argentina and China which have policies similar to this, along with many other poor countries. It should thus be known that where capitalism is not regulated by the state, workers inevitably suffer. The USA allows and supports this oppression, since our economy currently is being fueled by cheap foreign labor i.e. globalization. Perhaps you are blind to this phenomenon. Again you seem to paint an evil picture of socialism, and I agree that tyrannical socialism and any tyrannical gov't, for that matter, will inevitably fail. But, what I propose, is to simply give a democratic gov't total control, thus giving the people indirect control of their economy. Who currently runs US capitalism? Is it democratic in nature? Hardly! A very, very small percent of the USA population runs our economy, this faact you must be aware of.
Contrarian said:
Anything unregulated will fall prey to human instincts for greed and power. I don't trust my fellow man to always do the right thing.
Nor do I, especially under a system such as capitalism, where we are encouraged to exploit others for personal gain, capital gain, profit.
Contarian said:
Transpose the words "company and management" for "country and party" and you have communism. The answer for everyone is education. As long as there are untrained, unskilled, uneducated people, they will be "exploited" because they have not adjusted to the needs for survival. Sorry to say but it is very Darwinian out here... survivial of the fittest is not a bad thing... it is natures way. That doesn't mean as civilized people we don't take care of the weakest (look at Scandanavia again)
Education is great, but if you can't afford it, like the majority of the world's population, then what do you do? Also, the very nature of the competition of capitalism guaruntees that education will not provide a great increase in living standards for many people, it will only lead to more failure in the job market. You seem to think that 'country and party' are totally akin to 'company and management'. I disagree. If a country is democratic in nature, which any future socialist country will certainly be, we will have the people controlling their own economy. Companies are almost all dictatorships currently! And personally, I'll take democrratic control of the economy over a greedy dictator any day. Perhaps, though, you yourself prefer this dictatorship.
Contrarian said:
It can and will increase but only because it shifts to fit the economic environment and hence renews. Ex. switching from an economy based upon agriculture / farming to manufacturing / heavy industry to services / technology. It is an ever evolving animal which presents new opportunities with every shift.By the way, I'll take the crash of '29 against the huge "crash" that communism took after less than 50 years of dominence in eastern Europe and China
I think you misunderstand the reason for this expanding market. It is not 'evolution' as you suggest, this evolution only allows the expansion, it does not fuel it. A growing market is fueled by, as I later mention, a constant surplus of goods. When companies are constantly pumping ot this surplus, they have to find a bigger and bigger market, or else their company will fail. Also, you again mistake Stalin's USSR and Mao's China for 'communist' gov't. Here is a good website for what communism actually is, if you care to educate yourself:
www.worldsocialistmovement.org .
Contrarian said:
By the way the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, looks pretty well fed and happy in his mansion provided by the "people" while children are starving in the countryside...I'll add to your cliche... and many poor become richer, some actually can get rich themselves... that is not possible under communism
Again, communism is not some tyrannical state. I, again, support democratic socialism. I feel communism, or human production for use rather than profit, is something to work towards. Socialism is the first step, and we must make it democratic in order to give the workers i.e. the majority control over their economy. Socialism would be inverted capitalism, so to speak, with gov't regulation in place of an ever fluctuating market, so as to protect the poorer of society. What's stopping anyone from working hard and advancing under democratic socialism? I'm kind of shocked that you don't know what communism is, as opposed to Stalinist policy. You do understand that in '28 Stalin destroyed Lenin's idea of socialism, changing everything to give him complete control over what would become the Soviet empire. This one thing led to the mass of dictatorships that followed in China and North Korea.
Contrarian said:
The point you miss, is there is a symbionic relationship. One feeds off the other and vice versa. The beauty is it serves to improve both. The marketing guys have done a great job in creating this consummer society that buys anything that appeals to the market... so you know there is a Ferrari dealership in Shanghai? True intellectual capatalist are not afraid of a "turn", because capitalism is based upon cycles and adjustments to the market. A shift signifies additional opportunity. The point where a poor boy with a good idea and motivation can improve the lot of himself and his family. Sorry my friend... capitalism is a great thing, and communism has proven itself a dismal failure resulting in the impoversiment of generations of people in the countries it has damaged.
Nice chat.. gotta go and whip my slaves... sorry employees!
Again, you misunderstand communism completely, but then again, you are a capitalist, so this is rather expected! This expanding market you so desire is the cause of mass poverty throughout the third world. We can look at Latin America to see that the expansion of this market has led to peasants losing their land, farmers losing out to businesses, and poor workers making meager wages because of simply bad luck. The global market completely depends on cheap labor to function properly, and it follows that with global capitalism comes mass poverty. You admiration of capitalism is expected, though, since you are pretty wealthy, I'd imagine.