You obviously think success means rich people and corporations make a lot of money. All of the countries you name are economically very unequal, and have many millions of poor people.
David is again showing his deep ignorance as the best examples of capitalistic success has been the socialist countries of Sweden,Denmark, Finland, even France and Germany, and in a fashion England. If his examples are such successes why don't he move there? Also Fidel never said socialism was a success in Cuba. Also Cuba is not a socialist state, it is a totalitarian dictatorship and none of these have ever succeeded as far as the common folk are concerned.
Ted, are you seriously suggesting that life for ordinary people in China has not increased in terms of personal wealth far beyond the wildest imaginings of their parents and grandparents? That has been achieved by state-controlled capitalism which, being a giant monopoly, is doomed to failure in the end. All economies need corrections. In a free capitalist system those corrections occur naturally, or un-naturally if governments have interfered as they constantly do. In a state-controlled economy only the government can correct and when the state is a single political party, as per the CPC, then they find it almost impossible to correct because they cannot admit error. That, in a nutshell, is why China will eventually collapse like a pricked balloon. When it does, all those zillions of ordinary people who have tasted wealth for the first time ever will revolt on a giant scale.
I will only disagree with LL on one point, Cuba is a "totalitarian dictatorship" precisely because it is a communist state which, by its, er, "internal contradictions" is how they always end up!
Wow! You really have left the world of reality, DD. I don't remember mentioning China in particular, but they still have many millions of poor people. And a capitalism that is not regulated by government is the most disastrous economic system at all. And by the way, the Cuban people as a whole are much better off today than they ever were under capitalism (which does not mean improvements could not be made).
I do agree however, that no economic system works well under a dictatorship -- whether it is capitalism (properly called fascism under a dictatorship) or communism. There is a middle ground called socialism, but it only works in a democratic government (because the people must be in charge of their own lives). LL is right when he points to the Nordic countries, which have the truest form of socialism in existence today.
Ted, you really must keep up to date! After decades of social(ist) democracy, Sweden has moved right and now no one party can rule without coalition with another. Norway has moved right but subject to the same coalition arrangements. Denmark has moved well right but again, other parties have their influence.
And have you ever seen the old newsreels of China back in Mao's day and compared them to what you see today? To describe the difference as chalk and cheese simply doesn't describe it. So ask yourself, how have zillions of Chinese achieved wealth beyond their parents' dreams? Not because of the CPC sticking rigidly to Marxist/Leninist ideology but by taking the bold decision after Mao's death to give capitalism a chance - albeit, capitalism under the rule of the Party.
In India, they adopted what might be called British socialism, not least because so many of the leaders in the '30s, '40s and '50s studied at Brit universities all of which were in love with Attlee's socialism. Now however, under the pressure of global capitalism they have been forced to relinquish government controls over a host of activities and to open their doors to foreign ways.
I am amazed, Ted, that a man of your age and experience can still believe politicians and their governments are anything other than a potential threat. (Excuse any typos I'm in a rush!)
1. India is not a socialist nation. 2. China still has many millions of very poor people. Just because they now allow capitalists to abuse some workers does not mean the poor have disappeared, or that most of them are any better off than they ever were. 3. It is normal in a democracy, even one with a socialist economy, to swing from left to right and back again. That is politics - not economics. 4. I didn't know you were an anarchist and opposed to all government.
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.
Singapore. Hong Kong. China (sort of). India (sort of). South Africa (sort of). Malaysia (sort of).
ReplyDeleteNow, where is the success of socialism in, er, Cuba?
You obviously think success means rich people and corporations make a lot of money. All of the countries you name are economically very unequal, and have many millions of poor people.
ReplyDeleteDavid is again showing his deep ignorance as the best examples of capitalistic success has been the socialist countries of Sweden,Denmark, Finland, even France and Germany, and in a fashion England. If his examples are such successes why don't he move there? Also Fidel never said socialism was a success in Cuba. Also Cuba is not a socialist state, it is a totalitarian dictatorship and none of these have ever succeeded as far as the common folk are concerned.
ReplyDeleteTed, are you seriously suggesting that life for ordinary people in China has not increased in terms of personal wealth far beyond the wildest imaginings of their parents and grandparents? That has been achieved by state-controlled capitalism which, being a giant monopoly, is doomed to failure in the end. All economies need corrections. In a free capitalist system those corrections occur naturally, or un-naturally if governments have interfered as they constantly do. In a state-controlled economy only the government can correct and when the state is a single political party, as per the CPC, then they find it almost impossible to correct because they cannot admit error. That, in a nutshell, is why China will eventually collapse like a pricked balloon. When it does, all those zillions of ordinary people who have tasted wealth for the first time ever will revolt on a giant scale.
ReplyDeleteI will only disagree with LL on one point, Cuba is a "totalitarian dictatorship" precisely because it is a communist state which, by its, er, "internal contradictions" is how they always end up!
Wow! You really have left the world of reality, DD. I don't remember mentioning China in particular, but they still have many millions of poor people. And a capitalism that is not regulated by government is the most disastrous economic system at all. And by the way, the Cuban people as a whole are much better off today than they ever were under capitalism (which does not mean improvements could not be made).
ReplyDeleteI do agree however, that no economic system works well under a dictatorship -- whether it is capitalism (properly called fascism under a dictatorship) or communism. There is a middle ground called socialism, but it only works in a democratic government (because the people must be in charge of their own lives). LL is right when he points to the Nordic countries, which have the truest form of socialism in existence today.
ReplyDeleteTed, you really must keep up to date! After decades of social(ist) democracy, Sweden has moved right and now no one party can rule without coalition with another. Norway has moved right but subject to the same coalition arrangements. Denmark has moved well right but again, other parties have their influence.
ReplyDeleteAnd have you ever seen the old newsreels of China back in Mao's day and compared them to what you see today? To describe the difference as chalk and cheese simply doesn't describe it. So ask yourself, how have zillions of Chinese achieved wealth beyond their parents' dreams? Not because of the CPC sticking rigidly to Marxist/Leninist ideology but by taking the bold decision after Mao's death to give capitalism a chance - albeit, capitalism under the rule of the Party.
In India, they adopted what might be called British socialism, not least because so many of the leaders in the '30s, '40s and '50s studied at Brit universities all of which were in love with Attlee's socialism. Now however, under the pressure of global capitalism they have been forced to relinquish government controls over a host of activities and to open their doors to foreign ways.
I am amazed, Ted, that a man of your age and experience can still believe politicians and their governments are anything other than a potential threat. (Excuse any typos I'm in a rush!)
1. India is not a socialist nation.
ReplyDelete2. China still has many millions of very poor people. Just because they now allow capitalists to abuse some workers does not mean the poor have disappeared, or that most of them are any better off than they ever were.
3. It is normal in a democracy, even one with a socialist economy, to swing from left to right and back again. That is politics - not economics.
4. I didn't know you were an anarchist and opposed to all government.