I will state that I have issues with communism in its pure, unfettered form, namely the steps that would be taken to achieve the ideal society envisaged by communists. Bad news for those who would love to give themselves an orgasm by pigeonholing me with people who want a total command economy, just because I'm not 100-percent rightist. Yes, it's true, I don't like some things about communism. Maybe not for the same reason rightists don't like it, but nonetheless I don't like it. Oddly, I've been called a capitalist because of this. (I've also been called a bourgeois capitalist who wants to preserve the status quo by some left-winger who disagreed with evolution because he thought it endangered our civil liberties, but that's a story for another time.) Now that that's said, I'll say something else: I have issues with unfettered capitalism too. I am an economic centrist in some ways, and a pragmatist in others. It seems to me for the time being that any particular economic model in its pure form cannot be totally correct. Some have good qualities that we should learn from, and some have bad qualities we should avoid emulating. Some models may have more good qualities than bad, but this doesn't negate the obligation to try to compensate for those bad qualities. This means, in a nutshell, that I am for a mixed economy. I recognize the benefits of capitalism, and at the same time I recognize its more unfavorable aspects. Same goes with some other economic models. I want to strike a balance. Interestingly, in an uncomfortably rightist country like the US, this makes me closer to the American left, in relative terms. Life's funny sometimes. :shrug: The prompt for this thread was an article by The American Conservative, called "Marxism of the Right". This article argues against libertarianism, but I'm focusing on economic libertarianism, laissez-faire, and ignoring the points of contention with social libertarianism in order to stay on topic. I suggest you, the reader, do the same while on this thread. I think this pretty well summarizes my view of the old communism-versus-capitalism debate. Two extremes, two irrational extremes, both relying — though perhaps one more than the other — mostly on theory and on ideals which may not actually work in the real world. This is how I feel when I read people arguing so furiously against communism, sometimes resorting to such immature acts as name-calling the people whose economic views even remotely resemble communism. When they spout, "Communism doesn't work. Socialism doesn't work. Capitalism works. Any communitarian policies whatsoever are evil. Capitalism is supreme. All hail capitalism." When they seemingly refuse to believe that capitalism has its faults just like communism. When they think they're being more rational than communists when they ardently refuse any socialist reforms to their pure, holy model. I can accept that Marxism is flawed, but I charge that the Marxism of the right is also flawed. More people need to recognize this. Your thoughts?
I, for one, have never said that capitalism has no faults. But, as the Irish are fond of saying, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating", meaning that it has survived the test of time. So, pure or not, it actually works where all other approaches have ultimately failed, some more miserably than others. The one factor that most alternative approaches fail to take into consideration is the human element. And both greed and laziness are important parts of that element. Regardless of the system used, there will always be those who will take advantage of others - and there will always be those who will get by on as little effort as humanly possible. Also, any system that doesn't provide extraordinary rewards for extraordinary effort and ability will degenerate toward mediocrity. So that is an important element as well - clearly implying that not everyone can be treated as complete equals lest they all wind up being equally impotent.
Fair enough. Some argue that the proper forms of some economic models have not ever been implemented, saying that this is why they failed. But whether or not they're right, I'm not interested in arguing. Good point. I think I see what you're trying to say. I wonder, what do you think of reforms to the model that has withstood time, if it indeed has faults?
Well, there are no purely capitalistic models in existance anywhere. And here in the US, the system has been tempered with all types of "socialistic" programs. Things like Social Security, Aid to Dependent Children, various other welfare programs, forcing hospitals to treat indigent citizens, Medicare and Medicaid and several other things like that. There have also been some attempts to provide healthcare for every citizen and eventually some plan will be put into place. My point being that if we were totally capitalistic, none of those things would exist and that would indeed be it's faults. So we already have many of the 'reforms' in place that those who support alternative systems would provide with theirs.
So - isn't this an opportunity to apply the scientific method? Theories are made to be falsified! Unfortunately economies are complex systems that are difficult to make precise statements about, but surely in this age of web-enabled communication and computer-enabled information processing we can do better than follow the outdated bibles of Marx or Smith?
This is an interesting point. This kinda reminds me of the neoconservatives' apparent descent from a mid-20th-century faction of the political left (I'm on sort of a new tangent here). It seems the Bush administration and the Republican Congress under him has subscribed to big-government conservatism; what a scary combination! A good example is all this money we're throwing at "national defense", more than most of the world spends combined. With this in consideration, it's interesting that the right still uses the same old rhetoric. It's almost as if they want to deceive the true right-wingers, the ones whom one can respect if only for the fact they mean what they say, into thinking the right wing is still the same old right wing. But it really has mutated into a freak ideology that seems to think you can spend lots of money on something, when you have a fucking huge debt, and then cut your revenue — akin to buying a new car when you already have $100,000 in credit card debt, and then starting to only go part-time at your job. If you think modern Democrats are bad because of their taxes, try spending money you don't even have like today's Republicans. If we call Democrats tax-and-spenders, what shall we call modern Republicans? Spend-and-spend-and-spenders? Heh... But I digress. Seems we're agreeing. Are you Canadian or European, by chance? I ask because you remind me of some right-wingers in these respective areas of the world, ones who think capitalism is one of the best economic models we're aware of, but who decry the negative points of it nonetheless and tend to be a little less hostile to socialism than a lot of Americans are. For me, it's refreshingly different from virtual worship of capitalism. They make me feel like the right wing is a respectable ideology, at the very least. I suppose economics is just as good a science as any other. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, call them "borrow, spend, and spend" spenders. It is mainly for instruments of war the new breed of Republicans like to borrow and spend. The tanks, planes, bombs etc. would pile up and kill this favorate use of the people's money, so they are forced to start most of the US's wars, to destroy the accumulating surplus of war supplies. As the old saying goes: " The proof of the pudding is in the eating" - Look at the recent record. I.e. compare both father and son Bush with Clinton and LBJ. Which created new wars, expanded the military and the national debt and which ran budget surpluses and did not start any wars? (LBJ, and JFK before him, inherited the Vietnam war, did not start it. It came from Republican John F. Dulles' "Domino Theory.") I am a Republican of the "old school" and these new, so-called, "Republicans" make me sick! It is all an understandable consequence of the fact modern elections cost so much. - If you have relatively little support in the masses, then you must pump a lot of the public's money out to a few corportation, like Halliburton (or now ADM etc. with the development of the alcohol from corn programs) so these corporations will both be grateful and have the funds to support these expensive campaigns. It is also worth noting (giving credit where it is due) that Rumsfield's overhaul of the military ("smaller, faster and smarter" by high-tech plan) has made this all more efficient. - Much more, if not most, of the military budget can now go to the corporations, instead of paying "grunts with boots on the ground." (Why even National Guard units are having their tours of duty extended for the third time, etc. Also, the Iraq war is the first "contractor war" in US history. - i.e. almost all of the support services, logistics etc, are done by contractors = corporations.) Anne Rand wanted the corporations free of the government. I want the government free of the corporations. (So it can serve the public interest again - not as the modern Democrates want with central control and direction but as us old style Republians wanted: fiscal responsibility with a heart.) -------------------------- *They are not deceiving me. I hear the old words, that I still like, but now they just make me think of the book 1984.
No, most of the increase in federal spending under Bush II has gone to non-military stuff. It's the Medicare prescription drug benefit, agricultural subsidies and education. Spending on the military is a significantly smaller portion of GDP than in, say, 1990.
I agree with your facts (and did not state otherwise). I said what the Modern Republicans LIKE to spend money on. The things you mention are forced on them by political necessity. I think many new Republicans would be happy to spend less on medicare, on education*, etc, even on farm subsidies to those who do not kick in their "fair share" to the campaign funds**. As Social security claims grow, the military will be ever a smaller % of GDP. - I think we agree. - you just missed my LIKE TO SPEND ON qualifier. Democrates in contrast disLIKE to spend on the military. - Probably excessive so. - Would leave US too weak. MY point was that especially clear when speaking of Rumsfield's changes. The military now gets to channel a higher percent of its funds to corporations. It is increasingly clear that US needs more "boots on the ground" not stealth bombers, anti-ICBM programs, space lasers, etc. - these things are really just "corporate welfare" programs. This miss management of the military budget and the Iraq war became so clear that Rumsfield had to go. - he failed the troop's need for low tech items. - No armour on the Humvees, get your mom to send you some socks, suntan cream, etc. -------------------------- *But they are especially big on giving private schools a shot at the federal education money, at the expense of public schools, and insurance companies a shot at the social security funds. **It is the day of the ADMs, the Cargills etc. not the mythical "family farmer" they always speak of.
Whose money are they borrowing? Sounds interesting. Then you're a Republican I can respect. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Some from Americans but about 2 billion per day from foreigners, who are starting to realize that they will not get the same purchasing power back when the loan is repaid as the money the US is borrowing from them now had. Also many are starting to understand that when the falling value of the dollar is considered, the interest they are currently earning is not compensating for the capital loss. Is it any wonder that few want to hold more US dollars? Some central banks are still buying dollars. For example Brazil's is. This is because dollars are flooding into the country and few want them so it does not take many Brazilian Real to buy up these undesirable dollars. If the central bank (sort of a buyer of last resort) did not buy, then the Real would become even stronger against the dollar than it has. There is considerable talk about the flood of dollars into Brazil causing “de- industrialization.” I.e. factories in Brazil, which once were big exporters are closing. Last year, I was sitting in the ladies shoe department of Macy in NYC for about two hours while wife shopped. Bored, I began to look where the shoes came from. About half were from Brazil. Now Brazil exports very little - go to your department store and confirm. This is what the “de-industrialization talk is all about. China is converting Brazil into a supplier of iron ore and food stocks now. - Same will happen to US in a decade or so (except US does not have much in the way of minerals to export). These exports cause part of the flux of FDI into Brazil. Part is caused by people trying to get their wealth out of the US into invesments that will hold their value as the dollar drops. (As I did 5 years ago.) Too much FDI and exports can be a bad thing. - Both China and Brazil, for different reasons, are learning this now. One way to reduce dollar influx and your holding of dollars is to spend them buying things. For example buy Boeing airplanes or factories and farms in the US. Another way, increasingly more popular, is to refuse to accept dollars for some of your assets. For example, within the last month: (1) The Carlyle group tried to buy Xugong Construction, but China said No. (2) Goldman Sack has not (YET?) be allowed to buy Shineway (agro-foods giant in China) (3) Alstrom was not allowed to buy Wuhan Boilers. (4) Arcelor-Mittal was not allowed to buy Laiwu (steel factory in China) China has three times THIS YEAR already raised the funds its banks must transfer to the central bank - trying to control the growth rate by making less money available for new plants, factories etc. And raised the basic interest rates for the same reason, so this refusal to accept dollars and Euros is also an effort to cool the economy down and to prevent the flux of investment into China (this FDI flux tends to make the Yuan increase in value and that would hurt China's exports.) That said / admitted it is none the less an early indicator that the dollar is not able to buy some things - dollar losing its purchasing power.
You bring up some good points. The body politique of either capitalism and communism is never pure. And extreme-wing reactionaries are never right about their views, because it only ends up being tied in hypocrisy due to the oversimplification.
As I understand it, communism = socialism + totalitarianism. E.g. Denmark is socialist but democratic; North Korea is communist. China is partially capitalist but still totalitarian. Socialism seems to me a partially workable ideal, if you have a way to maintain accountability and avoid the 'tragedy of the commons'. Capitalism also requires accountability, hence the need for competition. A purely capitalist society advocating no government meddling would disable, e.g. the anti-trust laws that IMO help capitalism work. Although I'd like to see more evidence for that . . . I think Microsoft has more competition in the form of FOSS than other companies.
I have issues (big) with industrialism. Capitalism, socialism, fascism, nationalism, .... and even dream of communism are just different facets of that allconsuming monstrosity.
Socialism (as we know/knew it) is just slighltly modified capitalism, one may call it super state capitalism. Both capitalism and socialism share the same goal - creation of the industrial technological society. The question is management. The first ideologues of "socialism" have not thought about it as an alternative to capitalism. Au contre, they thought about it as super capitalism, which would manage technological development/society way better.
