Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Me and Me
As for refugees. Most people come from Mexico, a capitalist country.


Mexico, a corrupt country.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by moon
Sure. How about North/South Korea from the years 1952-1980? This is the only good comparison in your list, since, for one thing, you can't compare a city to a country where 1/4 of the population of the world resides. Also, East Germany is a special case. It had Stalinism imposed on it from above, and existed basically as a buffer from the imperialists who were constantly attacking the Soviet Union.

All look like good comparisons to me. All are countries that started out basically the same (they were one country, after all) but divided on capitalist/communist lines. What other such examples are there?

echidna

Yes, I think I noted something like that.

Actually I should qualify that. Even in small groups it doesn't always work fine. Kibbutzes & many tribal groups are cases when it does, however the Onion's example demonstrates the hilarity of why stable hippie communities are just so hard to find.

echidna

Comrades emphryio, moon and August, no, of course no socialism in the ME, not a haven for capitalism either. The simple point is that the U.S. does NOT always get its way worldwide, never has and never will, and more often than not is unhappy with the status quo.

But how can this be when you claim it can single-handedly so effectively quash such a brilliant idea as socialism ? Clearly socialism is inherently flawed. America�s oafish behaviour (not that the Soviets were any better of course) has often proved ineffective (although not always) often enough. America�s Cold War actions are a feeble alibi as to why no successful socialist state exists. You see the left continually omit the parallel intervention of the Soviet Union and China in most Cold War scenarios.

Please don�t try & tell me the Cold War was so so so one-sided that the US was assured of victory in every theatre. In truth there was often a fine balance between Eastern and Western influences sometimes favouring one side, sometimes the other. Does the left deny that Soviet influence paralleled American influence globally ? And yet, still � no � successful � socialist � state. In the your attempt to paint the world dominated by a giant bully stomping on socialist seeds, it of course completely fails to omit any reference to Soviet & Chinese influence & massive support for socialist seedlings. Let�s not forget that without Soviet support, almost every communist puppet folded within 5 years. So, massive external support and funding for the socialist revolution, and � still � no � successful � socialist � state.

Sheesh, blaming North Korea's failure on the US is as lame as blaming the Indonesian dictatorship on the Soviets.

echidna

Contrary to the negative example of Russia, contrast the Baltic states, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia :

http://www.balticsww.com/economic_stats.htm
Of course a large part of this is due to trade and foreign investment, that other dirty word, globalisation. In a nutshell, communism fails because people prefer not to live in poverty

moon

Strolling through the cesspool that is this thread, I happened upon this piece of completely typical mendacity from Vorkosigan:Ahh, yes, the true propagandist and twister of facts presents his faculties for all to see! Let us examine the Cuba vs. Guatemala figures, shall we?

Vorkosigan is quite correct that Guatemala's average GDP is twice that of Cuba's. We might infer from this that the average Guatemalan is better off than the average Cuban, right? Well, let's take a look. The following facts are available on the CIA World Fact Book. I've thrown in figures for the U.S. just for kicks.

Life expectancy at birth:
Cuba: 76.6 years
Guatemala: 64.16 years
USA: 77.4 years

Infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births:
Cuba: 7.27
Guatemala: 44.55
USA: 6.69

HIV/AIDS rate:
Cuba: 0.03%
Guatemala: 1.38%
USA: 0.61%

Literacy rate:
Cuba: 95.7%
Guatemala: 63.6%
USA: 97%

What we see is that, despite the fact that the GDP of Guatemala far exceeds that of Cuba, Cuba does a much better job at taking care of its people. In areas of health, Cuba even compares favorably to the U.S.!

Also of note is that Cuba has the most doctors per capita, the most art instructors per capita, and the most sports instructors per capita of any country on Earth, that there is one doctor for every 100 people, and the state invests huge resources into educating the people and providing health care. And this is a country that has been under an embargo for 43 years, and that has undergone near constant terrorist attacks by its northern neighbor. In spite of all this, Cuba has managed, starting from horrendous conditions in 1959, to build a society that takes care of its people.

The same cannot be said of Guatemala, a de facto U.S. colony, a country with tremendous natural resources, and potentially a very rich country. Yet, a huge bulk of the population of Guatemala lives in utter misery, some 40% below the extreme poverty line, meaning that they don't make enough to meet minimal caloric intake requirements. You have a very rich ruling class that collaborates with the imperialists in sucking the wealth out of Guatemala, enriching themselves in the process.

echidna

Time for this turd to call it a night & let others float to the top for a while.

Vorkosigan

Nope actually powerful foreign intervention is the main cause. Sorry if that sounds to simple. Surely there are MANY other factors but foreign intervention is the main cause.

Well sure, but I was merely making the point that the poster's logic was a bit off. I wasn't really asking for an answer!

America poured aid and investment into Taiwan to ensure that it would be an economic success to stand as a comparison to China. And I don't know if it's true for certain, but America would certainly have such an interest in South Korea too.

Yes, in both cases there was massive American aid, far greater, on a per capita basis, than the Marshall Plan. But since communism is inherently superior to capitalism (what is meant by that word anyway?) it should have been no problem for China or Russia to overcome.

Taiwan and S Korea had many other positives -- long experience with foreign trade, complex agrifinance systems that transferred easily to small industrial investment, complex social systems that revolved around capitalist production (see China's Motor by Hii Gates for a brilliant analysis) and a range of ownership structures. More important than aid dollars, though, was the US attitude. In the late 1950s domestic market saturation was slowing econ growth, but Taiwan's Nationalist leaders did not want to open up to exports for fear of losing control, and traditional Chinese contempt for merchants. Leadership split along political-crat and technocrat lines, but US pressure for market opening proved decisive. Other positives about US connection were access to US universities, English, not Russian, as major foreign language, and preferential access to US market.

I also recall that South Korea had a far greater degree of government involvement in their economy than what is generally called capitalism up until recently. And recently with increased deregulation their economy has been going downhill.

Ditto. And Ditto. Actual, major issue is China, not deregulation. Now that US is giving China preference, there is nothing that the S Koreans and Taiwanese can do that China cannot. Further, S Korea was always the weakest tiger economy -- low per capital income compared to others, fewer patents than Taiwan, and vast foreign debt that was the subject of a stream of in-denial World Bank reports in the 1980s. S Koreans also least open of the tiger economies, and least sophisticated. Still better at English than taiwan, though, to the undying embarrassment of our fair island (the two have a great rivalry).

Also South Korea and Taiwan have been helped by the stability of ... China.

Very good point. Not much commented on, either.

(Confused) So? The lack of perfection from two dictatorships proves.....?

Just responding to comment that unemployment is problem in capitalist countries. Is problem everywhere, stems from fundamental inability of society to adjust to the high productivity of modern economies that renders most workers superfluous.

Yes it is more complicated. To a degree the economic powers decide what will happen in the other countries. Also some of these countries have a high level of economic government involvement.

Well, the East Asian case is very complex. I've been studying just this point for the last 15 years. Basically state-led theories dominated the 80s, but in the 90s academics discovered networks of small business and industrial districts. Important to keep in mind that a key legitimation strategy of Taiwan gov't is that it "delivered" economic growth. To a certain extent academics have bought this, and to a certain extent, they have been bought.

Jebus Crisp, you are ignorant. See history of all of Africa and South America. Forget it. (I won't reproduce an equally true and insulting last sentence, I'll leave that sort of thing to you.)

An interesting reply, since it is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. No need to insult someone who thinks a non sequitor is a devastating response. The poster asked where capitalism has been a success. I gave him some ideas. Your response is that I should have answered a question about where capitalism has been a success by listing failed states in Africa and South America. That would have been a swift response. If he'd asked for a list a steak houses in Tucson, should I have responded by giving him the names of all the donut shops?

History is largely comprised of people treating each other like shit. It's no surprise there have been no positive examples of socialism. It makes perfect sense the most powerful people would have nothing to do with socialism and would also do whatever neccessary to stop true socialism from taking root anywhere.

"True socialism" cannot take root, because it will automatically elide into authoritarianism. In a truly socialist society, will I be able to build my own widget factory? Enjoy the copyrights from my books? Open a porn shop? Oppose the system? Sell stock? Join an investment club? Play baccarat? Spend my dollars on a giant concrete dinosaur for the front yard? Work as a consultant and editor setting my own schedule? Could we have a conversation like this in a "truly socialist" society?

And that brings us back to the links I provided which clearly show that actual socialism hasn't had a chance thanks to American imperialism. (Once again the point of the links isn't to paint American government as evil and therefore all other countries as good as Echidna strangely jumped to assuming.)

American intervention is hardly the only reason. It is not responsible for the technological failures, the low productivity of their industries, the high level of state control of citizens, and the expansionist nature of those governments. American intervention was a major factor, but no matter what stance America took, those states were doomed. Just look at what is happening to "Communism" in China now that it is growing through capitalism.

Further, and this point is not stressed enough, Communist and socialist systems are dedicated to the destruction of capitalism. Why should the US tolerate systems that are dedicated to its destruction?

The ultimate result of any command economic system is always inefficiency (in some sectors, such as education, market inefficiency is unimportant and even undesirable, so command systems are more effective). Market systems are simply much better at allocating resources and rewarding innovation and efficiency. Why do you think the Soviets replicated so many features of capitalist economic thinking, like setting up competing research bureaus?

Vorkosigan

moon

Just to pick one of numerous misleading statements in your post, would you care to back up your assertion that "those governments" have been expansionist? Which of the following have been expansionist? (Note: define "expansionist")

China
USSR
Cuba
Vietnam
Grenada under Bishop
Nicaragua under the Sandinistas
North Korea
Yugoslavia
Revolutionary Afghanistan
Chile under Allende

I will refrain from addressing your other lies, since it has been asserted a few times that socialist countries have been expansionist, but nobody has explained this. I must insist that you back up this incredible assertion.

moon

I have to say that this is one point we can agree on. You are correct that true communists are dedicated to smashing world capitalism. Not through military aggression, but through internal revolution. Therefore, the U.S. ruling class should try to crush socialism, for this reason. Real communism is, indeed, a threat to U.S. imperialism because real communism is internationalist, and stands in solidarity with the workers of the world who wish to liberate themselves from capitalist exploitation and oppression.

It is unfortunately the case that all hitherto existing socialist states have turned to the lie of Stalinism, proclaiming that false doctrine of "socialism in one country." Stalin typified the idea that socialist countries could compromise with the imperialists, and live in peace. What he ended up doing was simply capitulating to the imperialists, and crushing socialist revolutions in China, Spain and Germany.

Now, Vorkosigan, why can't you just be honest about it? Why do you have to tell all these lies about socialist countries being expansionist, or socialism failing because their economies didn't work, and so on? Just be clear about where your class interests lie, and we can have an honest and open discussion.