The Twentieth Century was basically a controlled experiment comparing two economic systems: Communism and Capitalism. Without a doubt, Capitalism came out on top.

In 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union finally collapsed, many thought it was "The End of History". Liberal Capitalism had proven the superior system. Soon all nations would see the light and we could all live in peace, prosperity, and freedom in our liberal democratic capitalist utopias.

But (there's always a but), it doesn't seem to be going that way. China and Russia are indeed embracing capitalism; but it's a capitalism married to an authoritarian government.

Now here's the really scary bit. Some people are predicting hard times ahead for the West as problems such as mounting debt, an aging population, and a shrinking manufactoring base come home to roost.
a new, quasi-authoritarian ideology which – allied with economic success – could attract adherents. Writing in a recent edition of Foreign Affairs, Azar Gat, an Israeli academic, suggests that if western democracies run into economic problems, a “successful non-democratic Second World could then be regarded by many as an attractive alternative to liberal democracy.”
Should Billy T's mega depression and hyper-inflation actually occur, we may see a shift to this sort of authoritarian capitalism in the West. Germany ended up a dictatorship under Hitler following it's period of hyperinflation. Will future generations look back on our time as a brief flowering of freedom in world history?

Or will the original theory win out, and the people of Russia and China start to demand political freedom to go with their newfound economic freedom? And will the West manage to avoid all the potential problems it faces?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f7aa8626-be00-11dc-8bc9-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=9c33700c-4c86-11da-89df-0000779e2340.html

The Twentieth Century was basically a controlled experiment comparing two economic systems: Communism and Capitalism. Without a doubt, Capitalism came out on top. Socialism came out on top.

But (there's always a but), it doesn't seem to be going that way. China and Russia are indeed embracing capitalism; but it's a capitalism married to an authoritarian government. Fascism. That came in second. But it's still in the running.

The US is choosing, now.

The Twentieth Century was basically a controlled experiment comparing two economic systems: Communism and Capitalism.
I think its more accurately described as Individualism vs. Collectivism.

I wouldnt say that individualism has triumphed entirely either.

The US today is far from the most individualistic society you can imagine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-Dhv59JYpA&feature=related

I think its more accurately described as Individualism vs. Collectivism.

I wouldnt say that individualism has triumphed entirely either.

The US today is far from the most individualistic society you can imagine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-Dhv59JYpA&feature=related
I watched you video. I agree that the real battle is individualism v/s collectivism. These ideas are not new to me. But, as you've noted, the west is not entirely free of collectivism either.

My original statement was correct. Communism was a horrific failure. Capitalism, even a capitalism burdened with a "mixed economy", proved itself far superior to communism in the twentieth century. So much so that the former communist countries are trying to develop a new form of capitalism devoid of the political freedom traditionally associated with it.

Have you read any Ayn Rand?

Capitalism, even a capitalism burdened with a "mixed economy", proved itself far superior to communism in the twentieth century. Socialism won. All the best political economies are heavily socialist.

Fascism came in second. Some pretty good political economies are heavily fascist.

The US is choosing - leaning toward second best, at the moment.

Have you read any Ayn Rand? All of it, I think.

Socialism won. All the best political economies are heavily socialist.

Interesting point!

The nations that generally consider themselves capitalist are actually far less capitalist and more socialist than they were a hundred years ago.

Socialism won. All the best political economies are heavily socialist.The major confrontation of the twentieth century and the major dividing line was communism v/s capitalism. Yes, the "capitalist" countries often had "mixed" economies with elements of socialism; but the defining characteristics of the West were Democracy and Capitalism.

As per the definition of capitalism:
generally refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly privately-owned and operated for profit.
verses socialism:
As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.
Most Western nations still have the majority of the means of production in private hands and are certainly operated for a profit, and so are capitalist.
The US is choosing - leaning toward second best, at the moment. Socialism and fascism are two sides of the same coin. Both subordinate the rights of the individual in favor of the collective. Be it "the people" (socialism) or "the race" (fascism) makes not much difference.
All of it, I think.Surprising. Which was your favorite?

Have you read any Ayn Rand?
Not any of her fiction no, but I find her incredibly sexy.

One of these days I'll start a thread on Rand's views about sexual relations.

Socialism and fascism are two sides of the same coin. Both subordinate the rights of the individual in favor of the collective. Be it "the people" (socialism) or "the race" (fascism) makes not much difference.
Yes, but socialism takes an more economic view towards establishing absolute equality.

Whereas fascism's view is more cultural towards establishing natural hierarchies.

Not any of her fiction no, but I find her incredibly sexy.

One of these days I'll start a thread on Rand's views about sexual relations.
Her views on sex were pretty fucked up. You should read the Fountainhead. It's her best work, I'm sure you'd like it. Her next best is Atlas Shrugged. Atlas shrugged is her masterpiece, but it's a bit less readable with more philosophical monologs. Anthem's not bad, you can read that in an afternoon. And We the Living is a semi-autobiographical depiction of life in Soviet Russia.

I think Poland in the 80s had the best model.
All the big business was owned by the state, so it met the people's interests.
But all citizens were free to take up their own small business, and the majority of them did,
so people were generally well off and they were free to realize their ideas and feed their families.

When private persons own the big business they fore their will on the state, and in the end it's the interests of the big corporations, not the people that get represented in gov decisions.

I support state owned big business.

You should read the Fountainhead. It's her best work, I'm sure you'd like it.
I understand its about the sex lives of architects...which might be a little too close to home. Thats my line of work. I might rent the film version though.

Her views on war are interesting. She regarded America's foreign wars as being a form of misguided altruism, including the first and second world war, and esp Vietnam.

But she supported Israel because to her, the Arabs were barbarians.

I imagine this is also how the colonists justified slaughtering the natives in America.

"The more Indians we kill this year means the fewer Indians we'll have to kill next year. Their attempts at civilization are simply ridiculous"
-Ulysses S. Grant

When private persons own the big business they fore their will on the state, and in the end it's the interests of the big corporations, not the people that get represented in gov decisions.

I support state owned big business.
How important does a business have to be to justify state ownership?

Do you want the government running the telephone networks, banking, insurance, the energy sector...do you want them making cars?

The Twentieth Century was basically a controlled experiment comparing two economic systems: Communism and Capitalism.
Controlled experiment? A conspiracy theory? :p

But (there's always a but), it doesn't seem to be going that way. China and Russia are indeed embracing capitalism; but it's a capitalism married to an authoritarian government.

Which is really all that matters to those with power in the world. Access to markets and the ability to go into the country and use cheap labor. US foreign policy in the latter 20th considered allies anyone who let the money and resources flow. Dictatorships, it seems, were often considered more effective - hence much of the policy in relation to, say, South America. Democracy movements which could be, yes, radical, but also could simply be socialist to the extent of wanting unions, the elimination of private armies and to separate foreign corporation control of the governements were seen as enemies of capitalism - and , even more oddly, democracy - in these countries and with US help crushed often with incredible cruelty including collective punishments.

How important does a business have to be to justify state ownership?

Do you want the government running the telephone networks, banking, insurance, the energy sector...do you want them making cars?

I'm not an economist, but a business that makes a lot of money and has an important impact on state economy.
Definitely telephone networks and the energy sector. There has to be a state insurance agency and a bank that people can opt to use too.

I'm not an economist, but a business that makes a lot of money and has an important impact on state economy.
Definitely telephone networks and the energy sector. There has to be a state insurance agency and a bank that people can opt to use too.
Canada used to have something called 'crown corporations'. These are important nationwide companies whos directors are appointed by the federal government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_corporation

Big socialism...small capitalism.

I understand its about the sex lives of architects...which might be a little too close to home. Thats my line of work. I might rent the film version though.The Gary Cooper film is Ok, but really doesn't do the book justice. And there's really not much sex in it.
Her views on war are interesting. She regarded America's foreign wars as being a form of misguided altruism, including the first and second world war, and esp Vietnam.Her view on war was that a free nation had the right to invade a dictatorship any time it wanted as dictatorships were inherently illegitimate forms of government; but that the free nation had no obligation to do so and should only invade when it was in their best interests.
But she supported Israel because to her, the Arabs were barbarians.I don't remember her specific opinions regarding Israel. Probably because, back when I read all her stuff, I couldn't care less about the arab/israeli conflict (Sept 11 is the only reason I care now, and I side with Israel since they're not the ones who attacked us or the ones who celebrated the deaths of Americans on Sept 11).
"The more Indians we kill this year means the fewer Indians we'll have to kill next year. Their attempts at civilization are simply ridiculous"
-Ulysses S. Grant
That's a good one.

Socialism will come out on top. If you've ever learned about how the "great depression" was started, you will know that pure capitalism sucks!

Socialism will come out on top. If you've ever learned about how the "great depression" was started, you will know that pure capitalism sucks!
I think most economists would argue that it was government involvement in artificially controlling capitalism that created the great depression.

Not capitalism itself.

I think most economists would argue that it was government involvement in artificially controlling capitalism that created the great depression.

Not capitalism itself.

Other way around, when capitalism was allowed freely, the economic collapse began. That's why Roosevelt started "The new deal" that ended the depression.

Other way around, when capitalism was allowed freely, the economic collapse began. That's why Roosevelt started "The new deal" that ended the depression.
Thats the point though...the Federal Reserve system (which is appointed by the government) did NOT allow capitalism to flow freely.

The new deal merely involved creating money out of thin air to stimulate the economy, while confiscating gold held by US citizens...a direct violation of the constitution which states that ONLY gold and silver will serve as the currency of the US.

Other way around, when capitalism was allowed freely, the economic collapse began. That's why Roosevelt started "The new deal" that ended the depression.
No, No, No. Roosevelt's policies actually extended the depression. It was only WW2 that finally got us out of it.

My original statement was correct. Communism was a horrific failure. Capitalism, even a capitalism burdened with a "mixed economy", proved itself far superior to communism in the twentieth century. So much so that the former communist countries are trying to develop a new form of capitalism devoid of the political freedom traditionally associated with it.?

What a bunch of bologna, u really do :m:

I think Poland in the 80s had the best model.
All the big business was owned by the state, so it met the people's interests.
But all citizens were free to take up their own small business, and the majority of them did,
so people were generally well off and they were free to realize their ideas and feed their families.

When private persons own the big business they fore their will on the state, and in the end it's the interests of the big corporations, not the people that get represented in gov decisions.

I support state owned big business.

For me, this would be an ideal model. What a fantastic idea.

But what happens when a small business (ex: Internet start-up) becomes a big business - ex: Google or MS?

I think the government should take care of things that are of primary service - like power and water. That's about it.



You know, I heard this numb nut on the news the other day suggesting we should allow ALL farms to go broke and import all food. I do NOT want to be totally reliant on imported crap food.

So that's another point I suppose,
Michael

Socialism and fascism are two sides of the same coin. Both subordinate the rights of the individual in favor of the collective. Be it "the people" (socialism) or "the race" (fascism) makes not much difference. ”

Yes, but socialism takes an more economic view towards establishing absolute equality.

Whereas fascism's view is more cultural towards establishing natural hierarchies. The racial side of fascism was just Hitler rousing the rabble.

The economic side was key: corporate entities run the State, and use it to govern in their interest. The individual submits not to a collective, but to that State. Mussolini, who named "fascism", spends a lot more time talking about these entities (not exactly "corporations" - one such entity was the army) than about superior races and suchlike. The submission of the individual to the State, on the other hand, is total. All businesses etc are private enterprises, the economy is rigidly capitalistic, but they submit to the State. Fascism is "an organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy" (Mussollini).

Socialism, the theory anyway, leaves unspecified exactly what the State should own (and at what level), and what corporations or collectives should own, and what private individuals should own. It is not necessarily totalitarian, or even centralized. Hence its flexibility, an advantage.

But what happens when a small business (ex: Internet start-up) becomes a big business - ex: Google or MS?

In modern times - they would get regulated by the state where and how they can spend money which exceeds a particular amount with exceptions in research and development expenses.

For example, if you build a new factory, you have to build a few flat houses and a park.

But what happens when a small business (ex: Internet start-up) becomes a big business - ex: Google or MS?

I think the government should take care of things that are of primary service - like power and water. That's about it.
Any sector of the economy requiring innovation should not be run by the government...no matter how large.

However I draw the line at nuclear weapons development...:D