Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why Has Socialism/Communism Failed in the Past?

Posted 2 years ago on April 23, 2012, 6:48 a.m. EST by toonces (-117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Why is there no successful examples of communism or socialism that can be pointed to as examples? USSR... fail. China... fail. Europe.. fail.

131 Comments

131 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Depends on which part of Europe you're talking about, and how you define socialism. Oh but wait, "mankind would rather see gestures than listen to reasons" (Nietzsche) ... translation (in this context) slogans are easier than critical analysis (too many pesky facts to consider).

[+] -4 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Nietzsche was right, mankind would rather believe the slogans of the left that say government will solve their problems than to actually take the time and effort to solve the problem themselves.

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Yeah, accept he never mentioned "the left" in his quote (at least read the shit b4 you open your pie hole).

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

It would help a lot if people stop thinking in dualistic terms like left/right or socialism/capitalism. There is a whole wide world of options that can't be captured in simplistic 2side thinking.

[-] 4 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

China will be hte worlds number one economy in 2016. If you are basing it on GDP, then I guess fascism is the best?

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Maybe, but it has a very low standard of living. It is just because they have over three times the population of the US. Not really very hard if you reduce the standard of living by 1/3.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

China has over 300 million people with a standard of living equivalent to the middle class in the US, and it is growing rapidly. Freedom is also growing rapidly. There are more practicing Christians in China than in all of Europe. The PRC Gov hates this but they cannot stop it.

Western innovation and free markets are liberating China without firing a shot.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

Yes, Christianity has been great for the Chinese. The Taiping Rebellion, a widespread civil war in southern China from 1850 to 1864, led by Christian convert Hong Xiuquan, who, having received visions, maintained that he was the younger brother of Jesus Christ, is one of the deadliest conflicts in human history. About 20 million people died.

Oh, yeah. And, the Opium Wars, brought on by the almighty West, were great, too.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The wide spread open expression of religion in China (any religion) in direct defiance of the Gov is just an example of the growing freedom there. It could just have well been the growth of cock-fighting. The point is that freedom is blossoming in the PRC and it is happening without war and destruction.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

Plenty of war and destruction made Modern China what it is today. Deng Xiaoping was simply keen enough to see that to "make it" in the Modern world, and compete with the West, China's economy would have to work within the capitalistic framework of the West. Hence, an agricultural society was transformed into a communist society with a capitalist economy with a mix of industry and agriculture.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Then you agree that western technology and free market capitalism beginning in earnest 20 years ago are bringing non-violent freedom to the people of the PRC?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

China became capitalist in 1976. It is the oldest continuing civilization in history, having been in existence for 4,100 years. Are you aware that China was more advanced than Europe for thousands of years and that Europeans garnered many ideas from the Chinese that fostered the Industrial Revolution. Are you aware that China had it's own religions and philosophies that still flourish today. They never "needed" anything from the West. The West got "put upon" them and they dealt with it.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago
  1. That seems to about the year that the west turned the corner on China. You are right China had it all. They should have dominated the world. But they blew it.

One explanation here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/books/review/civilization-the-west-and-the-rest-by-niall-ferguson-book-review.html?pagewanted=all

[-] 1 points by JoeW (109) 2 years ago

Dominating the world is a recipe for self destructing your civilization. (See the Romans)

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Do you believe that the US is trying to dominate the world?

[-] 1 points by JoeW (109) 2 years ago

Not the United States, our entire global civilization is trying to dominate the world. Playing god with all of creation. Deciding what on this planet is good, and what on it is bad.

The Roman's were infected with this deadly meme, and the similarities between our civilization's outlook and the Romans are too striking for me to conclude anything other than that there are now billions of people infected. If we cannot rid ourselves of it, our civilization will not last beyond the next few centuries, and the rest of the planet will fare even worse.

Instead of the current dream you have for humanity dominating the planet or perhaps destroying it if we are unlucky, would you not rather humanity see a much more diverse and bountiful world in the future? Perhaps in a million years we can be teachers to the next intelligent species to arise.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

You write as if humans are un-competitive by nature. We are simply reacting to 750,000 years of tribal competition that is now genetic. You are asking the leopard to change its spots.

This forum is a mirror of that nature. One side constantly trying to dominate the other with opinion, theory, and failing that an inevitable diatribe of hate, insults, and profanity.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

Um. Excuse me. Are you aware that most of the debt of the United States is owed to China? China IS dominating the world.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

BTW most of our debt is not owed to China, we owe it to each other:

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/21/who-owns-america-hint-its-not-china/

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Yes. Ferguson deals with that in the book. It is a worthwhile read.

China has adopted the western killer aps and is poised exceed US GDP in less than 20 years. That said a lot can happen in 20 years. China has such a large middle class now (300 million) that they are emerging as the next big consumer society.

China blew it in 1500 when they failed to respond to the the emergence of the west. But they are making up for it today by adopting the western play book. It is a bloodless revolution.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

They didn't blow it. They just didn't need anything from outside their own civilization and, therefore, were inward. History plays out and history repeats itself.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

No, they blew it. They had it all. The technology, culture, art, ships, weapons, everything. But they lacked the two most important western innovations, democracy and free markets. These innovations propelled the west within a few years to become more powerful militarily, create medical and industrial innovations, and dominate 90 % of the world by 1900.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

That is total nonsense. Why do you measure success by domination and power and materialism? The Chinese lost so much of the beauty that their civilization had when the West invaded.

Read: "The Search for Modern China" By Jonathan Spence

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I measure success by liberty. The more people that have it the more successful the culture.

[-] -3 points by MikeInOhio (13) 2 years ago

A beautiful civilization? I'm not sure the average Chinese would have held the same opinion.

I think you can liken it more to a gigantic slave state.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

"Didn't have" is not the same thing as ""lacked." If you "didn't have" something you didn't want and didn't need and could do without for an extended period and someone outside said you "lacked" it, hubris is the concept that would come to mind accompanied by a shrug of the shoulders. Nothing, under their tradition of Ch'an, would be said. That is your answer, nothing.

The "problem" that concerns you, exists only in your mind. There is no evidence that it existed in their's.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

and thats out of how many? approximately 1.5 BILLION. so that what? 2%? and they are only middle class? and you call that good? Better even ? China is polluted, has no freedom,forced abortions and you think there are a bunch of christians over there?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The PRC has about 1.34 billion people. The 300 million in the middle class represent ~ 22% of the total. Not a small number when you consider that the US middle class is only about 41% (not much better than China). The bigger issue is that while the middle class in the US is shrinking it is rising in the PRC.

The example of growing Christian faith in China (in the face of an objecting Gov) is made to demonstrate the increase in personal freedom there. There are other examples including the recent legalization of personal land ownership.

Forced abortions and the one-child rule is but one of many stains on the PRC human rights record, but freedom in the US is waning while it's rising in China. BTW, couples in Shanghai are now offered financial incentives for childbirth (there is a shortage of kids in that region).

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/abc-world-news-poll-us-middle-class-concerns/story?id=10088470&page=2#.T5cOgqtPvCo

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Western innovation and free markets are liberating China without firing a shot.

There are no free markets in China.... unless you count the bartering among the peasants.

Western Innovation is making a small subclass wealthier in China, at the expense of the western workers.

[-] 2 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

At the expense of Chinese workers too! I doubt that the people who are living in cages in Hong Kong feel like they have a "middle class" life, LOL!

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

There are 300 million people in the middle class in the PRC (and growing rapidly), all a direct result of innovation and free markets. Hardly a small sub class.

China has in many ways a freer market (and more individual liberty with less Gov intrusion) than the US.

http://freeliberal.com/articles/12132/awakening-dragon-the-rise-of-the-free-market-in-china

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Please put your numbers in the correct context. With 300 million people you are talking about 0.2% of the Chinese population.... I'm impressed.

'China has in many ways a freer market (and more individual liberty with less Gov intrusion) than the US.'

Really think so?? Move to China, do us a favor. Report back on how it really is.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I think that 300 million is about 22% of the total PRC population of 1.34 billion.

BTW the US middle class is only 41% and shrinking (while the PRC middle class is expanding).

I travel frequently to China and have for the past 15 years. The change there is very encouraging. Why is it necessary to take a love-it-or-leave-it attitude? Why not just try to take what works well in other places and learn from it?

BTW, from what I have learned, in 10 years there will be no labor cost advantage to manufacturing a product in Shenzhen or Kentucky. But there will be half a billion people in China anxious to buy US products.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

BTW, from what I have learned, in 10 years there will be no labor cost advantage to manufacturing a product in Shenzhen or Kentucky. But there will be half a billion people in China anxious to buy US products.

Isn't that lovely, both places have such a sufficiently low real income range and standard of living that they are equal. What an accomplishment. Can't wait until the rest of the states catch up to that poverty level, then we can be just like the Chinese.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Have you visited China? The lives of the middle class there are similar to those in the US. They have nice apartments, good food, education for their children, medical care, they go on vacations, they have Ipods and TVs, and cars. Why can't you be happy for their success? They earned it.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Their success was on the back of American workers, who had their work stolen from them through Free Trade, not Fair Trade. NC where I live used to be the furniture capital of the US, and textiles was the 2nd largest industry here. In 10 years close to a million people have lost their jobs due to the importation of cheap furniture and clothing from China... ala Walmart, Kmart, Target, etc....

You like large scale wealth distribution? Lets start with home first.

My brother recently visited China on a damn project, I have a co-worker who married a Chinese wife and had her imported here. Her stories confirm what my brother saw as well. Apples and oranges.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The average Chinese worker puts in 20 % more hours than the average American (40% more than the average European, slouchers-in-chief of the western world). Everybody works. There is virtually no un-employment. It is considered shameful to be un-employed.

It sounds like the backs that are working are Chinese. Meanwhile we enjoy inexpensive fruits of their labor. Our Walmart's are packed with American consumers buying Chinese products. You want to start at home? No one forces Americans to buy the stuff.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

It sounds like the backs that are working are Chinese.

The backs that are working for $150/month are Chinese. Free Trade has brought us a race to the bottom. Lets see who will work for less, who has less self esteem? Who wants to deprive their families of more? Who really doesn't care about quality of life more?

When you compete with people who live in grass huts.... you too will soon be living in a grass hut.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

A middle class person in the PRC makes between $9,000 and $18,000 per year (roughly equivalent to 4 - 5 times in the US). And if you make less than $25k your total tax bill is: $0.

There are 300 million middle class Chinese that live about the same as do middle class Americans. Same quality of life.

It is already too expensive to do manufacturing in parts of Southern China. In a few years they will have no labor cost advantage. But they may beat us out because they know how to educate large numbers of people, well.

In 2012 the PRC will graduate 1,000,000 engineers from University. The US will graduate less than 100,000. China has fewer than 10x the number of people in the US, a lot fewer.

If we want to compete with China in the future it is not going to be about low wages, it is going to be about education and free markets.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So what you are saying is - that American Business can pay in China what would be in America starvation wages or on the higher end just above the national poverty level income?

HhMMMMMmmmmmmmmm interesting.

Now I wonder what might attract American business to outsource jobs/work to such a place.

Do you think there might be an even greater outlay in payroll for that same work here in the USA? I mean as we generally frown on being paid only enough to eat and afford a fancy cardboard box to live in.

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

"If we want to compete with China in the future it is not going to be about low wages, it is going to be about education and free markets."

It will never be about free markets as China subsidizes many businesses and the government owns huge sectors of industry. Maybe in the future it won't be about low wages, but there are still the regulations. China's worker safety program, quality control, and environmental controls are virtually nonexistent.

"There are 300 million middle class Chinese that live about the same as do middle class Americans. Same quality of life."

The cost of living is far less, and the standard of living is far less. How many middle class chinese live in 3,000 sq ft houses, the average sized US house?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

How many middle class Europeans live in 3000 sq ft houses?

The term Middle class is pretty ill defined. It has come to mean a person that must work for a living, has an income somewhat higher than the working class, but not rich. They don't struggle to put food on the table but would be in trouble if they lost their job.

Using this metric middle class is middle class. It is the same in China, Europe, the US, or Paraguay.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

How many people are in the Chinese Gov?

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (18068) 2 years ago

'H' is for Hubris !! Thus :

fiat lux ...

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The fueling of capitalism by Christianity could be seen as accidental. On the one hand the Protestant work ethic (Idle hands are the Devil's work shop) drove them to toil for their whole lives until one day they woke up wealthy. On the other hand Catholics preached that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. The Protestants won I guess because in the end they just had more money and power.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (18068) 2 years ago

"Confucianism" - I'd suggest, is a the key prism through which to view 'Chinese Capitalism' and Society rather than from the point of view of parochial western ideas.

ad iudicium ...

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Prisms are filters and filters are better left to making coffee.

I prefer talking directly to people. People that live, and work, and die in the PRC. The people that I know there are so excited about their new found prosperity and freedom that they barely know what to do next.

In the west we have become so accustomed to wealth and liberty that we fail to appreciate it or the effort required to achieve and sustain it.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (18068) 2 years ago

Without "Confucianism" and recourse to Chinese history and culture, I fear any attempt to understand the dynamics of Chinese Society will be like chasing shadows in a hall of mirrors, no matter how many "excited" newly wealthy Chinese people you may now !

Nee-how Gwai-loh !!

pax et lux ...

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

How many people in the PRC practice Confucianism?

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (18068) 2 years ago

That is like asking 'how many people in The USA "practice" Capitalism ?' and the answer is the same - "Everyone to some extent or other" AND "No one" IF you attenuate both Confucianism and Capitalism to their pure and idealised form. Consider that it is not so much a question of aggregate numbers as it is a question of Culture.

multum in parvo ...

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I like to rely on information for which there is data. Conjecture leads to bad decisions. Anecdotes are also problematic, unless you have a large number of them.

One thing I do have a lot of data on is blue jeans. I know for sure that today blue jeans have are greater impact on culture in the PRC than does Confucius.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

NOTHING has a greater impact on China than Confucius and probably never will.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Renren. Confucius is not even a close second.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

Honesty, I hate to insult you, but that is one of the most ignorant things I've ever seen posted on this forum.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Insults are common in anonymous venues, but that hardly excuses it.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (18068) 2 years ago

Eh ?! What do you "know for sure" ?!! LOLOL !!!

Furthermore and despite your sulk, no one insulted you ('til now dumbass!) as 'bw' merely contritely put you right. Your singularly silly statement amounted to saying that Facebook is more important to American Society than The United States' Contstitution !!!

Extremely silly and I think even you'll agree on reflection !!

ad iudicium ...

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

100%. They don't "practice" Confucianism. It is not a religion. It is the over-arching philosophy of Chinese civilization.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

No, the protestants 'won' because they represented the largest group emigrating to the 13 colonies... All English colonies, therefore all protestant. We didn't fight the War of Independence from France which is a catholic nation.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Puzzle then on this: North and South America were colonized by Europeans at about the same time. Why were the outcomes so different? The clue is in your observation that the Protestants populated the North. Who populated the South?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

South and Middle America were indeed populated by Catholics, but its not religion that made the difference but in attitudes towards colonies. The Conquistadors were on the quest for El Dorado. They were gold hunters, not colonists. As such, they did not develop proper colonies with home country support to sustain them logistically on purpose. They explored and claimed large areas that they saw, but hardly stopped to colonize.

The Protestants from England were escaping religious persecution from other Protestants in England. They wanted to come here specifically to set up long term colonies for them to practice their religion without interference.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

But south america was eventually colonized by Catholics and they dominate the culture to this day. Spain and Portugal were the principal colonizing nations. The technique that they used to commercialize the land was different than in the North. Large areas were deeded to Royal cronies. 90 % of the land was owned by 4 % of the people. In the north the ratio was closer to 1/2.

The large amount of individual land ownership in the north encouraged innovation, competition, and progress. Land workers in the south had little motivation to make improvements in anything and the religion discouraged such activity (the poor will always be among you, camels passing through needle eyes, etc.).

It was the protestant work ethic (and profit) that inspired British Royalty to award indentured servants with 100 acres of their own land once they completed their service period. They then toiled to improve the land, and BTW, saw one other benefit: the right to vote. This privilege accelerated democracy in the north while the lack of it stifled freedom in the south.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

"Only about 40 percent of indentured servants lived to complete the terms of their contracts.....Early in the century, some servants were able to gain their own land as free men. But by 1660, much of the best land was claimed by the large land owners. The former servants were pushed westward, where the mountainous land was less arable and the threat from Indians constant.

A class of angry, impoverished pioneer farmers began to emerge as the 1600s grew old. After BACON'S REBELLION in 1676, planters began to prefer permanent African slavery to the headright system that had previously enabled them to prosper." http://www.ushistory.org/us/5b.asp

Indentured servants turned out to be lousy slaves.

Early English land grants were to corporations. A single corporation owned the English Colony of Massachusetts. Individual land ownership was scarce, a real rarity.

I don't know how you get off rewriting history.

Land workers in South America were there for logistical support of the treasure hunters... again a different colonial concept altogether. Boatloads of gold and silver conquered from the local natives were sent back to Spain and Portugal. All those governments cared about was enriching the royal coffers through precious metal acquisition. Thats why the English Navy allowed for Privateers... Pirates to raid Spanish treasure ships. There was no gold of any appreciable amount in the English colonies, and thats what was used to raise armies. England and Spain were at war with each other.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

BTW the 40% of surviving indentured servants is still a really big number of private land owners in the north. There were none in the south.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The difference is pretty simple:

In 1700, 90% of the land in South America was owned by 4 % of the people. At the same time 40 % of the people in the North owned 90 % of the land. No rewrite, just a fact. If you own a thing you will be motivated to improve it. It was that difference in motivation that propelled the North to become the major world power that it is today.

Good reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/books/review/civilization-the-west-and-the-rest-by-niall-ferguson-book-review.html?pagewanted=all

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

"Ferguson pays due respect to the intellectual and scientific contributions of China and Islam, but makes it clear that modern science and technology are fundamentally Western products. He asks if any non-Western state can simply acquire scientific knowledge without accepting other key Western institutions like “private property rights, the rule of law and truly representative government.”"

Thats absurd.

Acquiring scientific knowledge happens buy adhering to the scientific method, which allows for objectivity.

The scientific method owes no allegiance nor due to economics, politics nor religion. In fact in SPITE of politics, economics and religion science grew.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

His point is that the the scientific knowledge is not free. Someone has to pay for it. The source of the funding in the west comes from the other institutions like property rights, consumerism, the rule of law, competition, democracy, etc.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

The rule of law, democracy, and competition pay for scientific research?

Competition cuts down on company profits, leaves little left for R&D. Contrary to popular opinion companies despise competition, it only benefits the consumer.

The rule of law, has nothing to do with funding.

Democracy in of itself doesn't fund anything.

Governments usually foot the bill for pure research. The private sector considers R&D to be on the negative side of the ledger and does little of it themselves, unless something fruitful comes out of the pipline funded by governments -> universities -> national laboratory system, then the private sector grabs it.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

But who pays for the research?

Ok, what are the primary research institutions in the US?

Private corporations (for and not-for profit)

Universities

The Gov

Each of these groups needs money to fund the research and a reliable legal environment to protect their developments.

Ferguson's point is that the other key institutions ( property rights, consumerism, the rule of law, competition, democracy, etc.) are essential to fund and support the groups performing the research. Without them the research would not exist, or at best fail to flourish. Why did scientific research stagnate in China and the Ottoman Empire after 1500? Why did the west out perform them?

Gov funded research comes from taxes. Taxes come from money made due to institutions like: free enterprise, competition, and property right (including intellectual property). All of these things are are sustained and made reliable by democracy and the rule of law. People know the rules and count on them being enforced.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

anyone should be able to make discoveries through research

those discoveries should be patent

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

research can be paid by wage through the government

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

But who pays for the research?

Ok, what are the primary research institutions in the US?

Private corporations (for and not-for profit)

Universities

The Gov

Each of these groups needs money to fund the research and a reliable legal environment to protect their developments.

Ferguson's point is that the other key institutions ( property rights, consumerism, the rule of law, competition, democracy, etc.) are essential to fund and support the groups performing the research. Without them the research would not exist, or at best fail to flourish. Why did scientific research stagnate in China and the Ottoman Empire after 1500? Why did the west out perform them?

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Sounds like capitalism is responsible for the economic emergence of China.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Agreed. It is also responsible for the rise of liberty.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Wrong.

That would be the rise of Democracy as an example to the rest of the world.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Do you believe that democracy is rising in the PRC?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No.

Capitalism ( birth and growth of in China ).

Is what It Is.

The movement of goods and services for profit. It can exist without freedom and democracy. It is about money not people.


[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (476) 3 minutes ago

Do you believe that democracy is rising in the PRC? ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

So the growth of freedom in the PRC (land ownership, internet access, religion (larger than in Europe), freedom of movement, travel abroad, business ownership, private schools,etc) this all due to the growth of capitalism in China?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Are you talking about the show towns to impress the world on their advancement?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I encourage you to travel there and experience the place yourself if you can. But to really appreciate it you would need to have experienced the change over the last 15 years (I first started working there in 1998). The burst of freedom was like a shot of adrenaline to the people. And it is growing every day. It is really an encouraging experience. It would make you feel hopeful about humanity.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You worked in America Town? You know the KGB had training centers like that, though I don't know if they had actual Americans working there.

You know maybe I'm being a little harsh - how much of the population is living a middle class life did you say? 2.2 percent of the population? I can't remember. The rest still in abject poverty? Have they removed the government censorship of the internet yet?

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

22% of the PRC population is middle class (equivalent to the middle class in the US which is only 41%) and their middle class is growing while it shrinks in the US.

The other problem is that our middle class shrinks because poverty here is increasing, while in China their middle class grows by taking people out of poverty.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I wonder why our middle class would be shrinking and our population living in poverty would be growing?

Hhmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Such a mystery.

You say a PRC middle class employee gates paid what (?) an hour?

How much American business do they service in manufacturing and what not?

Oh never mind me I was just wondering if there was an obvious correlation.

Hhmmmmmmm.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree with you. It is not a mystery.

The real mystery is why has the US not been driven out of business completely by the Chinese?

85%

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree with you. It is not a mystery.

The real mystery is why has the US not been driven out of business completely by the Chinese? They have to lend us money to buy their stuff!

What reasons do you suspect keep us going?

85%

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Why have all capitalist countries failed? Why is the wolds economy in the sht? Your question is so superficial as to hold very little meaning,.

Many places around the world have larger socialist tendencies than in the USA, and have done much better, standard of living wise,. free university education for anyone who can pass the tests, and real healthcare systems that care for all. There is NO purely capitalist system, and there is no purely socialist ones either, I doubt we will ever see either. These are not ideologies as many of you free-marketers seem to believe, they are complex social organisations that include private (capitalist) and public (socialist) ownership or control of resources. The way we organise ownership in not some rigid ideological issue it is one of practicality. Who can own a river or a lake or a forest? These are collective resources of equal value to us all.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Economic political systems very greatly. Some readers minds are so rigidly constructed that they lack the ability to have one system fit into multiple categories. They can see black and white, but no shades of gray.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The main difference between them all is whether the people have their heads up their own asses, or can actually think.

WE are def a heads-up-the-asses nation.

[-] -1 points by gfylwm (-1) 2 years ago

Those countries are imploding financially because their "free lunch" system is not free and not sustainable. Without capitalism, you'd be a slave to the government. Is that what you want???

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Socialism has nothing to do with a 'free lunch', it is simply community ownership of collective resources. Whereas capitalism is private ownership of collective resources, so instead of the community benefiting equally from the exploitation of these natural gifts, a single capitalist get vast wealth and the community pays them to use what was theirs to begin with,. so you support being a slave to corporate/capitalist greed?

[+] -6 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Because of the social policies the governments have saddled on the back of the capitalistic economy.

[-] 4 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

weak,. we are living in the most deregulated free-est markets worldwide that the world has ever known,. and seeing that this capitaisim causes societal breakdown and economic divisions to grow even worse, you push for more? "It's not working, we need MORE of it!" logic and reason are not used be freepers.

[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Why has capitalism failed in the past? Why is it failing now here?

[+] -4 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Because Progressives have introduced socialistic policies to the point where we are no longer a Capitalistic economy anymore. The socialism introduced into the American Capitalistic system is causing the resulting bastardization of capitalistic system to fail.

[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Actually, it's the other way around. Socialist programs have actually extended the life of American capitalism, which would have gone down in flames during the Great Depression, if FDR had not introduced programs to modestly redistribute some of the wealth and to temporarily placate the proletariat.

[-] -3 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

It has been able to hold up under the progressive assault for a hundred years or so, but social policies have now undermined the economy to a tipping point where the capitalist economy can no longer support them.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

How the 1% swerve and squirm and slither in their arguments to promote their own interests. We revolve from one friend to another, one enemy to another, like the hands of an over-wound clock keeping pace with what they want us to believe.

We are told to hate anyone that stands in their way - we are told to love anyone that stands to make them a profit, and they don't even pay lip-service to any real alligance to the United States anymore.

And slowly we, the American people ourselves, wind our way on their revolving clock to a showdown. Soon it will be we who are the enemy, and the Chinese, filling their bottonless bank accounts, will be the real patriots.

Can we not see the writing on the wall?

[-] 1 points by PatrickWalsh (1) 2 years ago

"The Socialist-Capitalist Manifesto" is a great book! A must read... http://tinyurl.com/ORDER-THE-MANIFESTO-HERE

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

It's pretty simple. Communism takes it as its working axiom that everyone will work hard and selflessly toward the common good, each using only so much of the common resources are are necessary to live; and that no one is greedy or dishonest, and will game the system.

That sounds great, and it actually works pretty well in small, homogenous groups with strongly held common values, strong social cohesion and strong policing ability in the form of peer pressure and the ability to kick cheaters out of the group. You can see many examples in religious communes, sects like the Hutterites, the Amish and so on. They work very well, and many, like the Amish and Hutterities, have prospered for hundreds of years, even in the face of severe persecution.

Bring in too many people, or people who don't share those values, and it falls apart pretty quickly. A communal system can be gamed pretty easily if you're willing to ignore social norms and peer pressure and there's no way to kick you out of the group, and that's what always happens when you try to scale it up beyond a relatively small society. A lot of the people in charge turn into fatcats (and if the group is really large, like a country, there always has to be someone in charge), and a lot of everybody else figures out that if you don't work very hard, at the end of the day you still get the same food and same roof over your head as if you had worked hard, and they decide that they'd rather let someone else work hard. The people who do work hard end up serving as the chumps for everybody else and when they figure it out, they stop working hard too.

That's why those collective farms in the Soviet Union were never very productive, and half the time didn't produce anything at all. Eventually, nobody gave a shit, because it wasn't worth it. That's also why communist governments are always emitting vast amounts of propaganda in the form of "Workers' Re-Education" or some such thing. It turns out that people aren't engaging in the hoped-for selfless hard work on behalf of the group and the economy is collapsing as a result, and the authorities are engaged in a futile attempt to change that.

And that's the standard recipe for failure-massive corruption at the top, massive worker apathy at the bottom. It's happened every time communism been attempted on a large scale.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

That is exactly why the plans OWS have for the US will wreck individual liberty for everyone.

[-] 1 points by sato (148) 2 years ago

It all boils down to what you consider failures and the goals we set as a country. Europe has free healthcare & education and lower income inequality. The average Joe has an almost even chance in there. In America, your chances at success are heavily influenced by whether or not you can afford a good education that will lead you to a good job to pay for everything. At the end of the day, I think Europe isn't doing that bad. USSR & China just have a problem and that is that they are/were authoritarian regimes. It has nothing to do with being communists. Communism can be libertarian. I think what everyone considers a failure in the communist models we have seen is that people don't want an authoritarian regime. Also, don't count out China. In the long term, they may even do better than us here in the US. Even our current system has a lot of flaws like for example corruption and greed which diverge from our country's goals.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

You are only limited by your attitude and your drive. No one in America is "keeping you down". If you think you have an even shot in Europe, you have a better than even shot here in the US because you success is not capped the way it is in Europe.

Communism cannot be Libertarian. Communism compels, libertarians leave others alone. The two philosophies are at odds with one another. In a Libertarian run government, there would be a very small governmental footprint. In a Communist government, the government has to be huge and all directing. The two cannot coexist.

Corruption and greed are not flaws with "our system". They are human flaws. If you think there is no greed and corrupting in any other system, you don't understand the root of greed and corruption. Many is OWS support the Obama administration, and look at the rampant corruption that exists there.

[-] 1 points by sato (148) 2 years ago

You don't know what communism means. Communism and capitalism are the way the riches are divided. Authoritarian and libertarians are on another scale. You can have authoritarian capitalism (fascism) and you can have libertarian communism.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I am well aware of the difference. In capitalism, the money and economy is in the have of the private sector. In communism, all the money belongs to the government. You cannot have a libertarian communism. Communism is always authoritarian.

[-] 0 points by sato (148) 2 years ago

Once again, I recommend you read about it. Look at the political compass website. It uses a Left-Right x-axis and a Authoritarian and Libertarian y-axis. Libertarian communism exists.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Then they have mislabeled it. Libertarian communism is called religion. Voluntary sharing as a group.

[-] 1 points by RevolutionCA (33) 2 years ago

When the government nationalizes everything, doesn't create a workers council or something similar, and completely runs it, that is not socialism or communism. Its called state controlled capitalism. The USSR was socialist until Stalin came into power. Socialism is where the means of production is nationalized and then it is collectivized and ran by the workers. Communism is socialism but without a state or money. There has never been a complete socialist or communist country.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Better question: Why have social systems failed in the past even up to current times?

The oppression of their people by the wealthy and the corrupt.

As the saying goes SOSDD ( for any who might not catch that reference - same old shit different day )

It is when the governing stop governing for the people in good faith.

It is when greed and corruption run rampant.

Does not matter the system in place - Just how the system is run.

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (263) 2 years ago

It is not the matter of failing but what we have to see is the soundness and mass acceptability of the philosophy behind any thought.Thoughts do not succeed or fail by themselves. For example communism was failed by the Muslims who were backed and financed by the capitalist governments otherwise it was working well in the USSR.People have to make sacrifices for their conviction in reason and in the right to good life.

[-] 1 points by chell10 (4) 2 years ago

Where exactly is this place you call 'Europe'?

Someone below made reference to the homogenization that is the "lowest common denominator".. This is post is exactly that: typical thinking of those to which Friedrich Nietzsche was referring when he said, "Fanatics are picturesque, mankind would rather see gestures than listen to reasons." (As is the comment about lowest common denominators.) Cream of wheat for the brain..a laxative for the conscience..nothing more than pablum pretending to be critical thought.

What makes you a fanatic? Rabid nationalism..same as most fanatics. i find it hilarious that no matter where a person is born in America; that person can be considered un-american by holding any view other than the status quo. i cannot imagine a person ever being called, (Morris Berman is so great for pointing this out,) un-swedish, or un-chinese..

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I don't believe you can point to a post of mine where I called someone "un-American". I have called people anti America, though.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

And where is the example of a system that never fails? That is always fair and equitable? In which everybody prospers? Has no corruption? Has food systems that never sickens and kills the people who use it? That doesn't have industrial poisoning of their air and water? That doesn't have widespread fraud and corruption in its financial system? That doesn't have widespread corruption and vote buying in its electoral process. That doesn't have widespread corruption and special interests providing opportunities for elected officials to move into opportunities (jobs, consultancies, for them or family members) that people outside of government never have access to?

Is corruption uniquely absent from a government or set of governments that exemplify a system of government or economics?So what is the point of this post?

[-] -3 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Capitalism has never failed. progressive and social justice policies have made intrusions into the capitalistic economy that will cause the economy to fail... Capitalism does not fail because it is a natural law.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Either it has been tried and found wanting or it hasn't been tried. It is convenient to blame its failures of a lack of purity. But the more pure it is, the quicker the correct name changes to oligarchy or anarchy, which then take the blame.

Show one place where capitalism has not done this and is generally recognized as a success. Since it is an economic system not a political system, which political systems do you claim it will work with?

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

Strange how you can say that. All over the world a form of capitalism is used, yet we see it failing all the time. Extreme poverty is killing millions due to the effects of capitalism. The earths resources are drained faster then they can replenish due to capitalism. Wars are fought because of capitalism.

So no, no form of ism is perfect. And most certainly not capitalism. It's been tried and failed. Yet we keep clinging on it as if it's the holy grail.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

You cannot kill capitalism. As long as there are people, they will be using a capitalistic economy. The government can try to crush it, but capitalism will survive in the form of a black market. It happens even in prisons. People working and selling the proceeds of there labor for profit.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

You make it sound like it's a religion.

[-] 1 points by tep22 (1) 2 years ago

Because the central entity that controls can never have enough information to control the economy well. Too many inputs and variables. Too many unintended consequences from a big bureaucraptic body trying to make decisions with no agility or speed and a lack of feedback information from the end consumer. Hence, you stand in line for hours for a few rolls of toilet paper as happened in mother Russia. A company can adapt, because it's been in the business for years and knows it's market and knows the right moves to make for it's customers. If it doesn't, it dies, so it has an incentive to keep it's customers satisfied. A gubment agency? Not so much. It gets paid whether people accept it's product or service or not.

Only you know why you buy a Nokia and not a Motorola cell phone or Jasmine rice instead of Basmati rice. Once the feedback mechanisms to the producer are taken out of the equation, everything breaks down. The gubment does what it wants because it thinks it knows best, and people stop participating in it's games. Then it tries to subsidize and ends up killing anyone that's still viable. Cronyism sets in. It's really that simple.

Centrally commanded economies never reach escape velocity. They just fall back to earth, like medicare is doing right now. Doctors are refusing to take it. Obamacare will suffer the same fate.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

But the PRC is a hybrid. The Central Gov knows that they fare better if they give economic freedom to individuals and let the free market work. It has been increasingly easy to do business there over the last 15 years. People can even own land now.

The Gov tries to impose social rules with show trials and extreme public punishment for infractions, but most folks in the PRC realize that they are so numerous that it is unlikely they in particular will be singled out.

What do you suspect is the next stage for that country?

[-] 1 points by flip (5207) 2 years ago

toonces.... fail - again!

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

nanny nanny boo boo... stick your head in doo doo

[-] 1 points by flip (5207) 2 years ago

about what i expected - well thought out

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Why is Capitalism Killing us now???

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by gfylwm (-1) 2 years ago

Because communism rewards corruption, lack of production, and mediocrity. It's basically the UAW or AFL/CIO on a national scale.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Cuba.. fail.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Romania... Fail!

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

North Korea.. fail

This is too easy.

[-] 0 points by Pequod (17) 2 years ago

Because socialism and communism appeal to the lowest common denominator. If man's basic nature was to work hard and live organized efficient lives, then both would work. However that isnt the reality. People will do as little as is required of them. The Pilgrims had this problem as did many early settlers to America.

Its why the 60s communes failed.

[-] 1 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

Capitalism has created a society where there is no option of 'working hard' because there isn't enough jobs to support the population.

A landlord can be as lazy as humanly possible, and become for wealthy for it.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

indeed that is why a carry a whip in ancient rome

what does it mean to do more work them is required?

[-] 0 points by Zombiefighter (-16) from Ione, CA 2 years ago

You are absolutely right about that.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Ding! Ding! Ding! You are a winner!

[Removed]