I really was stupid not to see that: the end of communism meant end of capitalism too. Both systems had modifying influence one on another and now nothing modifies the bad tendency of capitalism (its egoism and greed). Only China (as a system) can survive it because due to their having major elements of both c+c chinaism shall survive.
If China doesn't have any consumers to sell its products to then it won't last long. Without a capitalistic world China will only revert back to its communistic ways.
This is not a possibility: as I posted in the opening neither communism can survive without capitalism. There can be (as far as I can figure now) only a totally new system or the cc combination.
PopCop: How are you defining capitalism? How are you defining communism? Since Marx defined the latter as requiring the withering of the state and the return of direct rulership to the people, China is 0% communist. You therefore must be using a different definition. Similarly, if you are definiing "communism" and the Chinese mix as a blend of "capitalism (however you define it) with state oversight and control, then America has such a blend too. In fact, all modern western nations are a blend of capitalism and state regulation of markets. So, since the American system is doomed, and China is ascendant, the only way to understand the "why" of your argument is for you to more precisely define your terms for us. In particular I would like to know what you think "capitalism" means. If China's model does become dominant, that would be sad news for liberty, as China is definitely hostile to liberty. I am rather hoping that capitalism ultimately forces them to become more open and free.
Capitalism is an economic philosophy not a political system. Communism is a political model that's never been fully realized. Maybe the OP really wants to discuss codependency of "free" markets and state controlled markets?
Capitalist country is eg USA (capitalism is the political/economic structure there) communist country was Soviet Union (communism was the political/economic structure there) It hope it is sufficient to this discussion to set the terms as this. (Everybody who cares to discuss this can compare the systems on the basis of the two examples). Basic differences are markets (as pointed) (strong/minimal) government form of (private/common) ownership of means of production (Marx) But as I said the examples USA/SU are more suited voor the discussion not to became too abstract.
That's a terrible definition, since Canada and the United States have very similar economies if that is all there is (unless you want to describe Canada ias different because it's not the US, settingup a "no true Scotsman fallacy" for the remainder of the thread). All western economies are systems of "regulated capitalism" these days. The Soviets had a "Communist" political party, but the country was not communist. It was socialist...the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Everyone has markets....even the soviets had markets, they just had stricter regulations on their markets (price and quantity controls, for example). They also had rampant black markets as a result, which were "free" (if illegal). Marx definitely did *not* want the state to control production indefinitely, he wanted the people to control directly, and if a political party in a far off Moscow or Beijing said "no," then fuck them because the people could defy the party freely. It was Engels (Marx's collaborator on the Communist Manifesto" who coined the term "the withering away of the State" that was to occur after the proletariat rose up in revolution. The state was, at most, supposed to transition the people from capitalism to a point where the State could dissolve itself. What happened,? The State betrayed the real communists and (predictably) kept power for itself. Stalin had 23 million of people murdered to maintain his own power. Mao saw that mass murder and decided "I can beat that." Mao murdered something on the order of 50 million people in the name of consolidating his own power. What did both come up with in the end? People surely went about their economic lives (as they would under capitalism), but the overlay of regulations and laws was simply more dense, and more focused on maintaining the power and privilege of those at the top. Eventually that started to change, and the USSR broke apart. China also changed and the big result there was that much of the oppressive regulation was lifted to that markets could operate more freely. Still, though, you risk death is you dare to criticize the government. That's the model for the future? It's what Orwell predicted: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever . . ." Still, lets look at two factors that seem to define your definition: 1) Private ownership of the means of production; and 2) Regulation of the use of that capital. Imagine a scale of 1-10, where pure government ownership of property is a 1 and a state where the government owns nothing itself is a 10. Similarly imagine a 1 on the Regulation scale is one in which there are no regulation (anarcho-capitalism reigns) and a 10 on the Regulation scale represents completely regimented laws for the use of any asset that cover every possible use. The U.S. is presently a 3 on private ownership and a 3 on regulation. China is, presently, a 4-5 on private ownership and a 7 on regulation. Canada would be about a (3, 4). The economic differences are not nearly as great as you think. What really separates us is the political oppression of China against its own people, not its economic policies.
Wait, whoa, what? I mean, I'm not saying you're wrong but I'd like a source or perspective on this.."Property" is what exactly, all assets, land, production faculties? I know the US has a massive military, medical & educational capital investments But does it really equate to private capital at around 30%? Is that just inside our borders or include US companies stakes all over the globe? Not say'n Just say,n.
I didn't based my idea (the end of "communism" - or whatever one wants to call it - has as it's consequence the end of capitalism too) on comparing the two systems. My issue is the extreme form which these system tend to develop if not modified by one another. Your analysis as far as US and Canada is probably OK - do not know much about these. Extreme form of capitalism (we are not yet there) would look something like (just random terms from the papers): GLOBAL MELTDOWN massive civil unrest and a collapse of the government A possible military coup (in some countries) etc.
I think of it as productive assets, and (while the "3" was basically nothing more than a gut-checked number), I'd imagine if you look at the government's share, as measured by fair market value, of all productive assets (including military assets, hospitals, their stakes in bailed out companies from time to time, land, computers, vehicles, etc.), you'd find that they do own quite a lot, but that much more is in private hands. In fact, it gets tricky (and I didn't go into this) because if the government can regulate your use of an asset, it can capture some of the value of that asset and certainly limit your ability to take value from that asset. Really, the question of "ownership" is a question of the laws and regulations by itself. My real point is: America is: (A) a country where a lot of assets are privately owned, and a lot are publicly owed and (B) regulations restrict the use of privately owned property and the operation of the markets in significant ways. AND China is: (A) a country where a lot of assets are privately owned, and a lot are publicly owed and (B) regulations restrict the use of privately owned property and the operation of the markets in significant ways. As such, if the Chinese economic model is truly going to be ascendant, as the OP asserts, it's not entirely clear why. They certainly have differences in degrees with respect to their economic characteristics, but not clear differences in kind. The ultimate answer, I gather, is that whatever the differences are, they render China less prone to having a meltdown...but that's hardly a certainty. They are not doing as poorly (in relative terms) as the U.S. right now, but that isn't sufficient evidence of perpetual stability. I'm also skeptical of the assertion that capitalism and "communism" (aka Soviet style socialism) "balanced" each other. If anything, the two systems were polarizing within the U.S. and USSR. There was no competitive pressure to moderate our system imposed by theirs that I can see. It's not like people were freely moving to "the country they like best" based on degrees of regulation in each. Even when we did increase regulation (as, for example, with the formation of the EPA), that was not a response to communism, it was a response to domestic conditions. The Cuyahoga River catching on fire had more to do with the EPA being formed than anything Khrushchev, Kosygin or Brezhnev ever did.
What strikes me as one flaw in modern market analysis (capitalism) is that the health of markets are gauged by the rate of growth. It's not good enough to just be growing. Growth has to be at a faster rate than the previous month,quarter, year or whatever. Then, when an inevitable slow down occurs the politicians which were often put in office by the money generated from said market(s) do everything to keep their backers from experiencing normal consumer based growth trends by way of incentives, caps, debt and on and on.
I agree..But a 3 would infer MORE government ownership than private on a scale defined by you as: It's not that important, I guess I just don't understand how your scale works.
I think there was an "influence" on one another between the two in the area (on the concept) of the distribution of wealth. The communist system (at extreme) would give everybody even part (neglecting the talent or capacity of the persons). Existence of a system where the capable were rewarded better influenced the communists that they (against their principle of even reward) allowed the talented some additional (moderate) reward. (If there were no alternative rewarding system (capitalism) Soviet Union would have developed a system similar to North Korea and collapsed after a while (was too big to be govern like that.) The capitalist system is now getting into its extreme pre-collapse state because there is no moderating influence on the distribution of wealth there. There is no "worker's state" where blue/white collar workers get distributed a reasonable reward and their managers too. A disproportionate amount of common wealth is grabbed by a few who will tell you that there is no other way to distribute the wealth than to give it to them. (Otherwise you would disrupt the free market system)
That's my point, communism NEVER moderated in any way had a moderating influence on the distribution of wealth in the U.S. No one ever said "Well, we should even out incomes, to make sure our workers don't move to the USSR." Why? Because there was basically a 0% chance that anyone from the U.S. was really going to move to the USSR to take advantage of all that income equality. If anything it was the reverse, the workers would agitate and someone would say "You sound like communists". The workers would then stop or moderate their agitating because being a "communist" was considered to be a bad thing. It is true that income inequality has grown in the past few decades, but its post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning to assume that the fall of the USSR had anything to do with that. Whatever moderating influences there were, the USSR's mere existence wasn't one of them. If you think it was, then fell free to present evidence that shows how that could be. Right now, it just seems like you're asserting that point based on no evidence in a way that seems wholly implausible to me. Second, you are asserting without evidence that the U.S. will collapse. Other than a just-so story asserting that workers will rise up, and destroy the U.S (and of course your blind HOPE taht America will fall apart) what fats do you base that on? Are there otehr countries that have historically fallen in the way you suggest the U.S. will? Beside, and then what will the workers do with no government? Live in EVEN WORSE conditions than they do now because total anarchy will reign? Are the workers in this fantasy all retarded? If the U.S. were to fall from internal agitation, it would be toppled by an organized group that would have a plan to transition the government to something that favors them and their agenda. That sort of movement will take (at least) decades to form, and likely many decades because workers would first try to reform the system from within. Workers can't even get a president that is deeply committed to "pro-labor" policies now not because the system is stacked against them, but because the workers are politically divided. You see, many of the working class in America are conservatives, not liberals, not socialists, and virtually no one is communists (not that many people ever were in America...it was always a small percentage). Those workers all voted for Reagan, and if a Reaganlike figure rose again, they'd vote for him again. And you expect the workers are going to agree collectively to rise up and overthrow the U.S. government? Marx was simply wrong to think of "labor" as one political unit. They rarely were, and in the U.S., especially right now, certainly are not.
I think if you reverse the scenario you would be closer to what people often are describing as a potential "end of America". A scenario where not the workers but a loosely organized elite class changed the government into something that favors them and their agendas (which some describe is the direction the USA has been heading for a couple decades). This may explain why it's difficult to find a candidate that's pro-labor AND can afford to run in the race for presidency.
China controls it's capitalist experiment through an oppressive system of central control. The US has to control it's capitalism through it's representative political system. I happen to think our system can work, all we have to do is outlaw the influence of money. I don't hold out much hope for China, since there is no such mechanism.
I haven't really propose any of these things. In my earlier post I wrote I also mean/meant capitalism generally but it is OK that you use USA in you argument because I invited you to do that (to use the USA as an example for "capitalism"). Nevertheless I didn't speak about USA myself nor do I wish it to collapse just to make my topic more true. What concerns me is eg the riots in London, violent demonstration in Greece, Euro situation in Europe generally (etc - no need to repeat my opening). But you are right: I see this all as very bad development and may -possibly- overestimate the problem. Well I hope you are right. If there is a provable influence of Soviet Union collapse on the late crisis - that issue can be handled only after many years (30 - 50) at this moment it is to soon to tell. I think there is/was such influence but I cannot prove it.
