Ahovking

Rant:

80 posts in this topic

I'm talking about '29-'33, not '08-'09.

 

No other economical system can withstand it because no other economical system is capable of crashing like that. Said systems prevent such a thing from happening through regulation.

 

On a further note, I wouldn't say that capitalism "withstood" the '29 crash, seeing that the economy didn't improve until regulation was put in place (granted, it's debated whether the New Deal improved or prolonged the Depression). The US economy really hasn't crashed since then, until '08.

Capitalism without moderate regulation is absolute garbage to everyone but the high rich class. Capitalism without regulation should always be avoided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not that familiar with Australian labor laws but you can at least raise the price for a higher quality product right? demand will definitely go down but darn if manage to make a sale you will make it big time The problem with Privatisation is that the big and small companies will always try to gain more profit. Cutting costs and finding loopholes in a law is one of them and State Run companies, while arguably might not be the most cost effective solution is the best solution in ensuring that no companies will be monopolising the market (if the government has it than it will ensure the people at least get some security for their water, electricity etc). The bank business (through my own experience of seeing the numerous ads, hearing news reports and having a mother that works for a banking company of the opposing side) is heavily competitioned with 5-6 massive banking companies trying to serve their customer the best way they can. And the competition is looking really healthy and safe (besides some corruption allegations. Understandable since my country's classified as third world) Besides. As Fox Fire has said: No system can last forever. In the near future even with strict regulation these companies that run our electricity and water they WILL (as they have done in the past. Don't need much evidence to support this one) find a way to circumvent the law and screw us all over again in the name of profit.  and besides. I wouldn't put my odds in hoping that private companies won't monopolize something our governments fail to see. Big governments can work (Scandinavia is a good example) as long as they remain transparent, and the people really, really have good access to information which they have in the form of the internet. For Georgia and South Africa, good for them. No system will work indefinitely in any country without some form of tweaking. But i have seen in my country over and over again that privatizing companies is a bad thing since my people has limited access of information and these companies will use them to screw them over. There will be no good customer service if the customer themselves don't know what are the values, product quality, government regulation, and inner workings of the company (something i really envy from Australia. You have the internet and it's massive info repositories to back you up) to complain about besides we pay these companies with both buying them stuff and paying tax money. If they screw us over they know they're in it big time since they also ruffle the feathers of taxpayers and politicans who will be questioning why the taxpayers are pissed.    do mind that i'm not familiar with Australian politics, laws, and economics. And besides it's just a debate (hopefully friendly) so don't get too personal on some guy talking on the internet who disagreed with your viewsan Oligarchy? sure looks like it

And it's an oligarchy because the careless transition to capitalism threw the Russian mafia into power.

This however, does not make it any less democratic or capitalist. Even the USSR was a democracy. . Whether the democratic process is corrupt is a whole different story. Even the US democratic process is a total joke. Our votes are symbolic at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it's an oligarchy because the careless transition to capitalism threw the Russian mafia into power.

This however, does not make it any less democratic or capitalist. Even the USSR was a democracy. . Whether the democratic process is corrupt is a whole different story. Even the US democratic process is a total joke. Our votes are symbolic at best.

No, our votes are a lot more then "symbolic".

Good god everyone, give the US some credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're symbolic. A way of making the people feel empowered. Why do you think Americans always hate their politicians? Because all there is to choose from is a ******** and the giant elephant in the roroom. Neither of which understand the concept of public service.

Presidential elections are especially a waste of time because your ballot will literally decide nothing. The electoral college is a pile of crap and lobbyists should be shot. (OK. Maybe just beat with sticks).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The electoral college is a pile of crap and lobbyists should be shot. (OK. Maybe just beat with sticks).

or ban them via law (i know the problems with doing that but it's the most bloodless solution so far)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're symbolic. A way of making the people feel empowered. Why do you think Americans always hate their politicians? Because all there is to choose from is a ******** and the giant elephant in the roroom. Neither of which understand the concept of public service.

Presidential elections are especially a waste of time because your ballot will literally decide nothing. The electoral college is a pile of crap and lobbyists should be shot. (OK. Maybe just beat with sticks).

 

No one's forcing anyone to vote for the major parties; vote 3rd party. This is a failure of the electorate, not the electoral system. People just keep voting for the richest sociopath, but no one is coercing them into this or systematically limiting their choices.

 

The electoral college is crap, though, that's for sure. I'm a fan of this:

 

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

 

It's a state-by-state bill that pledges states' electoral votes to whomever wins the national popular vote. Currently, 165 electoral votes worth of states have put this bill into effect; once 270 electoral votes worth of states have done so, the electoral college will automatically select the winner of the popular vote.

Edited by Elsuper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're symbolic. A way of making the people feel empowered. Why do you think Americans always hate their politicians? Because all there is to choose from is a ******** and the giant elephant in the roroom. Neither of which understand the concept of public service.

Presidential elections are especially a waste of time because your ballot will literally decide nothing. The electoral college is a pile of crap and lobbyists should be shot. (OK. Maybe just beat with sticks).

That's sweet. So because you don't like the options, our vote doesn't matter.

Pick a third party or don't vote. Our votes are more then symbolic despite that you personally don't like the options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would I pick a third party when we all know it's a complete waste of time and effort.

America is a TWO party system and is specifically kept that way by every person with any amount of actual influence.

When the green party is having the lead singer of DK run for president under their name, you KNOW a third party is a complete joke.

(Besides, there is no American party that can satisfy my beliefs.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would I pick a third party when we all know it's a complete waste of time and effort.

America is a TWO party system and is specifically kept that way by every person with any amount of actual influence.

When the green party is having the lead singer of DK run for president under their name, you KNOW a third party is a complete joke.

(Besides, there is no American party that can satisfy my beliefs.)

The Republican Party and Democratic Party are both awful (Democrats a little bit less). However, I know better than that our votes are more then symbolic.

Edited by Evan051

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because it's a ******** example doesn't make it something other than what it is. Russia is a democracy by definition, and if it isn't capitalist, what is it?

Oligarchy at best. 

I'm not that familiar with Australian labor laws but you can at least raise the price for a higher quality product right? demand will definitely go down but darn if manage to make a sale you will make it big time

 

The problem with Privatisation is that the big and small companies will always try to gain more profit. Cutting costs and finding loopholes in a law is one of them and State Run companies, while arguably might not be the most cost effective solution is the best solution in ensuring that no companies will be monopolising the market (if the government has it than it will ensure the people at least get some security for their water, electricity etc). The bank business (through my own experience of seeing the numerous ads, hearing news reports and having a mother that works for a banking company of the opposing side) is heavily competitioned with 5-6 massive banking companies trying to serve their customer the best way they can. And the competition is looking really healthy and safe (besides some corruption allegations. Understandable since my country's classified as third world)

 

Besides. As Fox Fire has said: No system can last forever. In the near future even with strict regulation these companies that run our electricity and water they WILL (as they have done in the past. Don't need much evidence to support this one) find a way to circumvent the law and screw us all over again in the name of profit. 

 

and besides. I wouldn't put my odds in hoping that private companies won't monopolize something our governments fail to see. Big governments can work (Scandinavia is a good example) as long as they remain transparent, and the people really, really have good access to information which they have in the form of the internet.

 

For Georgia and South Africa, good for them. No system will work indefinitely in any country without some form of tweaking. But i have seen in my country over and over again that privatizing companies is a bad thing since my people has limited access of information and these companies will use them to screw them over. There will be no good customer service if the customer themselves don't know what are the values, product quality, government regulation, and inner workings of the company (something i really envy from Australia. You have the internet and it's massive info repositories to back you up) to complain about

 

besides we pay these companies with both buying them stuff and paying tax money. If they screw us over they know they're in it big time since they also ruffle the feathers of taxpayers and politicans who will be questioning why the taxpayers are pissed. 

 

do mind that i'm not familiar with Australian politics, laws, and economics. And besides it's just a debate (hopefully friendly) so don't get too personal on some guy talking on the internet who disagreed with your views

Ive given you real life examples where Privatisation has worked far better than when these assets were under state control, your preaching theory without taking into account real life examples of this theory in work.

And oh i agree NO system can last forever.

Im guessing your from the west and in the west we have made Privatisation a mockery, when we Privatisation sectors we create monopolize and with no competition and the "too big to fail" status, we the people will be scrawd but thats not how its ment to be, that process is created by government intervention and not by market forces.

 

 

Let me share a story.. (background, during the 1980s Australia began to fall apart economically)

Hawke-Keating government during the 1980s, the economy was massively and tightly controlled and regulated by the government, with the state controlling exchange rate, regulations of banks, home loan mortgage rate, while controlling/owning a significant chunk of the banking sector and many other sectors etc.

The Hawke-Keating government had a chose either to regulate more or to free it up.. to avoid a economical crash

so after the selling off state own banks, deregulating sectors and selling state own assets, the end affect was the average price for everyday items and goods fell by about a third, and has resulted in 23 years of continual economic growth.

This is another real life example how competition and Privatisation has lead to years of continual economic growth and prosperity for Australians.

 

I'm talking about '29-'33, not '08-'09.

 

No other economical system can withstand it because no other economical system is capable of crashing like that. Said systems prevent such a thing from happening through regulation.

 

On a further note, I wouldn't say that capitalism "withstood" the '29 crash, seeing that the economy didn't improve until regulation was put in place (granted, it's debated whether the New Deal improved or prolonged the Depression). The US economy really hasn't crashed since then, until '08.

 

Economic collapse is when you have social chaos, civil unrest and a breakdown of law and order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_collapse) .. we saw this in every 30+ nations that tried socialism and failed to last longer than 40-80 years including the mighty USSR. 

During the great depression when the US GDP shanked by 50% you didn't have any more social chaos, civil unrest or breakdown of law and order than during the African-American Civil Rights Movement or the anti Vietnam war movement. -International data from Maddison, Angus."Historical Statistics for the World Economy, Krugman, Paul (March 20, 2009),"The Great Recession versus the Great Depression".

The Capitalist west has enjoyed a greater and longer social and civil stability than any other economical model out there today.. now im not saying that capitalism will alway be the model but socialism is far being a alternative, i mean socialism cant last on average 40 years before the very fabric of society breaks down and collapses the economy and the government.

 

Capitalism without moderate regulation is absolute garbage to everyone but the high rich class. Capitalism without regulation should always be avoided.

Agreed, Capitalism without regulation doesnt last any longer than 10 years according to attempts. thats we free market capitlaism is the chosen system and not laissez-faire

Edited by Ahovking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being an oligarchy doesn't make Russia any less capitalist. The nation is basically run by an illegitimate business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Economic collapse is when you have social chaos, civil unrest and a breakdown of law and order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_collapse) .. we saw this in every 30+ nations that tried socialism and failed to last longer than 40-80 years including the mighty USSR. 

During the great depression when the US GDP shanked by 50% you didn't have any more social chaos, civil unrest or breakdown of law and order than during the African-American Civil Rights Movement or the anti Vietnam war movement. -International data from Maddison, Angus."Historical Statistics for the World Economy, Krugman, Paul (March 20, 2009),"The Great Recession versus the Great Depression".

The Capitalist west has enjoyed a greater and longer social and civil stability than any other economical model out there today.. now im not saying that capitalism will alway be the model but socialism is far being a alternative, i mean socialism cant last on average 40 years before the very fabric of society breaks down and collapses the economy and the government.

 

Not really going to argue what defines "economic collapse" (it's subjective, granted), but I'd just like to point out that the link you provided used the Great Depression as an example of an economic collapse in the introductory paragraph. 

 

If you're looking for "social unrest," I think the bank runs in '31 are sufficient enough.

 

(As a side note, what does anyone know about the Nordic model? Countries that use that seem to be surprisingly successful.)

Edited by chrisford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(As a side note, what does anyone know about the Nordic model? Countries that use that seem to be surprisingly successful.)

 

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

 

It says that the common traits among all those models has a massive Public sector (at least 30%), supports a form of Universalist welfare state, and commits itself to Free Trade

Ive given you real life examples where Privatisation has worked far better than when these assets were under state control, your preaching theory without taking into account real life examples of this theory in work.

And oh i agree NO system can last forever.

Im guessing your from the west and in the west we have made Privatisation a mockery, when we Privatisation sectors we create monopolize and with no competition and the "too big to fail" status, we the people will be scrawd but thats not how its ment to be, that process is created by government intervention and not by market forces.

 

 

Let me share a story.. (background, during the 1980s Australia began to fall apart economically)

Hawke-Keating government during the 1980s, the economy was massively and tightly controlled and regulated by the government, with the state controlling exchange rate, regulations of banks, home loan mortgage rate, while controlling/owning a significant chunk of the banking sector and many other sectors etc.

The Hawke-Keating government had a chose either to regulate more or to free it up.. to avoid a economical crash

so after the selling off state own banks, deregulating sectors and selling state own assets, the end affect was the average price for everyday items and goods fell by about a third, and has resulted in 23 years of continual economic growth.

This is another real life example how competition and Privatisation has lead to years of continual economic growth and prosperity for Australians.

 

I can give you some real life examples. I can give you several but for now i will stick with Sweden

 

After world war 1 ended and followed by the removal of trade barriers. Goods flood into Sweden like wildfire, supply shortages turned into surpluses and that naturally lead to the downturning of the price of goods. 

 

But when you think that the cheap goods flooding the Swedish Market is good. It's not

 

with the massive lowering of prices profit margins tumbled, companies couldn't adapt and many are forced into liquidation, overall Swedish productivity is lowered by 25%, and unemployment rose to 30%. It tried to recovered (with marginal success) only to be hit by another economic crisis in 1929 (great depression). It came out slightly better off due to the devaluation of the Swedish Krona by 30% and the Lumber and Mining industries took full advantage of the lowering of prices.

 

By 1932 the Swedish government, tumbled with the devaluation of the Swedish currency, really high unemployment, and drastically falling exports (courtesy of the great depression) decided that enough is enough and formed what we now know as the Swedish economic model. The government decided to control large sectors of the private sector, decided to play an active role in the economy, and tightened it's grip on Labour Market policies. After world war 2 the Swedish economy quickened pace due to the demand from Germany and war torn europe (Sweden didn't participate in world war 2) and with most of the Swedish production bases left intact. Sweden's public and private sector soared

 

during the 1960's the Swedish GDP grew at an average of 5%, and unemployment fell down to 2%. A combination of government control over the economy, a large public sector, a large welfare system, and several historical events made the Swedish model very effective in making Sweden one of the richest countries of Earth (despite the heavy tax burden). And it's still growing today despite the setbacks of the 2008-2009 recession. 

 

Sweden faced a massive economical crash and the government decides the opposite of the what Hawke Keating Government did. It worked out really well and it still works today

Edited by Ax3hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being an oligarchy doesn't make Russia any less capitalist. The nation is basically run by an illegitimate business.

Oligarchy is not Capitalism, they both are very different political and economical models. Please explain how they are the same?

You basically saying being a duck (oligarchy) doesn't make it any less like a dog (capitalist)?? they are two separate things.

 

Not really going to argue what defines "economic collapse" (it's subjective, granted), but I'd just like to point out that the link you provided used the Great Depression as an example of an economic collapse in the introductory paragraph. 

 

If you're looking for "social unrest," I think the bank runs in '31 are sufficient enough.

 

(As a side note, what does anyone know about the Nordic model? Countries that use that seem to be surprisingly successful.)

Look at Russia during a "economic crash" what happen? The government itself collapsed and the whole country was thrown back 30 - 50 years, this didn't happen in the US, yes there was a run on banks and unemployment skyrocketed but the government itself didn't collapsed,

Being capitalist or socialist doest stop recessions or depressions or even total economic failure but looking at history, In the end society was better protected under a capitalist rule that could survive and keep law and order during great economic turmoil unlike its socialist alternative.

(Forget about the Nordic model try the Australian model 23 years of constant strong economic growth.. But the Nordic model is very capitalist economically and very socialist socially, they seem to have found a balance between the two system that doesn't require regulatiing the crap out of businesses.. and killing off their industries as a result. 

Also i'm very interesting in the Nordic idea of Flexicurity, Basically business can fire who ever they want and how many they want, free from union or government intervention or protest.. in return the government working with unions help train workers in developing skills and equip with their new ability soon find a job.. its worked really well.)

 

I can give you some real life examples. I can give you several but for now i will stick with Sweden

 

After world war 1 ended and followed by the removal of trade barriers. Goods flood into Sweden like wildfire, supply shortages turned into surpluses and that naturally lead to the downturning of the price of goods. 

 

But when you think that the cheap goods flooding the Swedish Market is good. It's not

 

with the massive lowering of prices profit margins tumbled, companies couldn't adapt and many are forced into liquidation, overall Swedish productivity is lowered by 25%, and unemployment rose to 30%. It tried to recovered (with marginal success) only to be hit by another economic crisis in 1929 (great depression). It came out slightly better off due to the devaluation of the Swedish Krona by 30% and the Lumber and Mining industries took full advantage of the lowering of prices.

 

By 1932 the Swedish government, tumbled with the devaluation of the Swedish currency, really high unemployment, and drastically falling exports (courtesy of the great depression) decided that enough is enough and formed what we now know as the Swedish economic model. The government decided to control large sectors of the private sector, decided to play an active role in the economy, and tightened it's grip on Labour Market policies. After world war 2 the Swedish economy quickened pace due to the demand from Germany and war torn europe (Sweden didn't participate in world war 2) and with most of the Swedish production bases left intact. Sweden's public and private sector soared

 

during the 1960's the Swedish GDP grew at an average of 5%, and unemployment fell down to 2%. A combination of government control over the economy, a large public sector, a large welfare system, and several historical events made the Swedish model very effective in making Sweden one of the richest countries of Earth (despite the heavy tax burden). And it's still growing today despite the setbacks of the 2008-2009 recession. 

 

Sweden faced a massive economical crash and the government decides the opposite of the what Hawke Keating Government did. It worked out really well and it still works today

Sweden is capitalism done right..(i think your mistaking my argument for laissez-faire capitalism and not free market capitalism)

As the swedish government said in their own words "The Swedish economy is performing well in comparison with other Western nations. Before, the country’s economy was weak and sometimes dismissed as ‘socialist’, but now it is held up as an example of capitalism done right."

What Sweden did was regulation responsibly and when the crisis was over, they regulationed and lowered taxion etc (not all of them ofcause but most taxes and regulations were later reformed or cut) the problem with Australia was we OVER regulated the economy and its the same thing happing in the West, everyone is overregulating and regulation the wrong areas/sectors and not the areas/sectors that are too free or that are cause the problems.

(Oh and what did the Swedish say the number one thing for Stability and Prosperity was? A balanced budget, some altest in my counties the left laugh at why demanding ever larger deficits and while the right are doing the right thing and being us to a A balanced budget)

Edited by Ahovking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweden is capitalism done right..(i think your mistaking my argument for laissez-faire capitalism and not free market capitalism)

As the swedish government said in their own words "The Swedish economy is performing well in comparison with other Western nations. Before, the country’s economy was weak and sometimes dismissed as ‘socialist’, but now it is held up as an example of capitalism done right."

What Sweden did was regulation responsibly and when the crisis was over, they regulationed and lowered taxion etc (not all of them of cause but most taxes and regulations were later reformed or cut) the problem with Australia was we OVER regulated the economy and its the same thing happing in the West, everyone is overregulating and regulation the wrong areas/sectors and not the areas/sectors that are too free or that are cause the problems.

(Oh and what did the Swedish say the number one thing for Stability and Prosperity was? A balanced budget, some altest in my counties the left laugh at why demanding ever larger deficits and while the right are doing the right thing and being us to a A balanced budget)

 

Then i think this argument's is over. I have made my point about responsible government regulation and we both to be in an agreement that Laissez Faire is a total joke and that the Free Market (accompanied with government regulation) economy is the way to go.

 

Although i wouldn't say that most western countries over regulate. The US seems to be not regulating at all when the Housing bubble broke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Republican Party and Democratic Party are both awful (Democrats a little bit less). However, I know better than that our votes are more then symbolic.

People on the internet say this a lot but I disagree; I say both are equally bad. Given the internet's views and my views this is little surprise though. As for myself I always vote. Some referenda in the last few years have been very close in my constituency and the man I voted to send to parliament didn't get in but I voted for him again in a local election and he got in. Always vote and always vote with your brain is what I say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then i think this argument's is over. I have made my point about responsible government regulation and we both to be in an agreement that Laissez Faire is a total joke and that the Free Market (accompanied with government regulation) economy is the way to go.

 

Although i wouldn't say that most western countries over regulate. The US seems to be not regulating at all when the Housing bubble broke

Yes we agree.. 

And the Housing bubble is for another topic, the problem is the US is de-regulating big businesses and banks while regulatingthe hell out of harmless small business and others, and its just empowering the "Fat Cats".

The government is failing at keeping the free market, free and fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People on the internet say this a lot but I disagree; I say both are equally bad. Given the internet's views and my views this is little surprise though. As for myself I always vote. Some referenda in the last few years have been very close in my constituency and the man I voted to send to parliament didn't get in but I voted for him again in a local election and he got in. Always vote and always vote with your brain is what I say.

I always vote too. Right now since the Democrats are the slightly better option to me (I'm left-wing if you haven't guessed already), though I wish a truly left-wing party would finally come in. However, the republicans are slowly falling into irrelevance. I predict in the future the Democrats replace the Republicans, and a more leftist party replaces the Democrat's position. So it's Democrats vs. [insert more leftist party here].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government is failing at keeping the free market, free and fair.

 

They always have and always will.

 

"...the more developed, the “purer” democracy is, the more naked, acute and merciless the class struggle becomes, and the “purer” the capitalist oppression and bourgeois dictatorship. The Dreyfus case in republican France, the massacre of strikers by hired bands armed by the capitalists in the free and democratic American republic—these and thousands of similar facts illustrate the truth which the bourgeoisie are vainly seeking to conceal, namely, that actually terror and bourgeois dictatorship prevail in the most democratic of republics and are openly displayed every time the exploiters think the power of capital is being shaken..."

-Lenin, Capitalist "Democracy": Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie

 

While I usually disagree with Lenin, (he was as good a Marxist as Hitler was a Christian) he makes a good point. The only difference between the current state of affairs and those of a century ago are that forceful suppression and violence have given way to political bribes and Super PACs. In a free market system where individuals have the capability to accumulate enough wealth (i.e. power) to influence the political process more than other people, there will be people who abuse the power they have. They will, for personal gain, manipulate politicians until they have achieved their desires. In a democracy, a free market, by its very nature, cannot remain free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

They always have and always will.

 

"...the more developed, the “purer” democracy is, the more naked, acute and merciless the class struggle becomes, and the “purer” the capitalist oppression and bourgeois dictatorship. The Dreyfus case in republican France, the massacre of strikers by hired bands armed by the capitalists in the free and democratic American republic—these and thousands of similar facts illustrate the truth which the bourgeoisie are vainly seeking to conceal, namely, that actually terror and bourgeois dictatorship prevail in the most democratic of republics and are openly displayed every time the exploiters think the power of capital is being shaken..."

-Lenin, Capitalist "Democracy": Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie

What about massacre of strikers by hired bands armed by the socialist in China and the USSR?

 

While I usually disagree with Lenin, (he was as good a Marxist as Hitler was a Christian) he makes a good point. The only difference between the current state of affairs and those of a century ago are that forceful suppression and violence have given way to political bribes and Super PACs. In a free market system where individuals have the capability to accumulate enough wealth (i.e. power) to influence the political process more than other people, there will be people who abuse the power they have. They will, for personal gain, manipulate politicians until they have achieved their desires. In a democracy, a free market, by its very nature, cannot remain free.

Political bribes and corruption were even more ramped in the USSR than in the US today, there has yet to be a socialist state as non-corrupt as a developed capitalist nation.

Then again i would of thought political bribes and corruption is a failure of the government and policy not a failure of economical system.

Edited by Ahovking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They always have and always will.

 

"...the more developed, the “purer” democracy is, the more naked, acute and merciless the class struggle becomes, and the “purer” the capitalist oppression and bourgeois dictatorship. The Dreyfus case in republican France, the massacre of strikers by hired bands armed by the capitalists in the free and democratic American republic—these and thousands of similar facts illustrate the truth which the bourgeoisie are vainly seeking to conceal, namely, that actually terror and bourgeois dictatorship prevail in the most democratic of republics and are openly displayed every time the exploiters think the power of capital is being shaken..."

-Lenin, Capitalist "Democracy": Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie

 

While I usually disagree with Lenin, (he was as good a Marxist as Hitler was a Christian) he makes a good point. The only difference between the current state of affairs and those of a century ago are that forceful suppression and violence have given way to political bribes and Super PACs. In a free market system where individuals have the capability to accumulate enough wealth (i.e. power) to influence the political process more than other people, there will be people who abuse the power they have. They will, for personal gain, manipulate politicians until they have achieved their desires. In a democracy, a free market, by its very nature, cannot remain free.

Aw, do you think the answer to corruption is Socialism?

Capitalism is great at resolving corruption when corporations are kept out of politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw, do you think the answer to corruption is Socialism?

Capitalism is great at resolving corruption when corporations are kept out of politics.

Corruption is historical worst in socialist states than in capitalist states? However i don't believe the level of corruption within a country is caused by the economic system but rather its political system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corruption is historical worst in socialist states than in capitalist states? However i don't believe the level of corruption within a country is caused by the economic system but rather its political system.

Nation's culture, political, economic, etc. all affect corruption levels.

Under a economic system where everyone is poor, bribes are a lot more viable at making money. If you allow corporations to fund super PACs and to get into government, they're essentially bribing politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that whenever somebody says what Hitler's religion/atheism is it's whatever worldview the person guessing it hates the most, just like how Hitler hated Judaism and communism so he reckoned the Russians were Jews when in reality it was an Orthodox people under an atheist state. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 What about massacre of strikers by hired bands armed by the socialist in China and the USSR?

 

 

Political bribes and corruption were even more ramped in the USSR than in the US today, there has yet to be a socialist state as non-corrupt as a developed capitalist nation.

Then again i would of thought political bribes and corruption is a failure of the government and policy not a failure of economical system.

You're using an ad hominem.

I used the Lenin quote to prove a point, not to show support for Lenin (or any Bolshevik, or Mao and his successors). Lenin made the wages system standard throughout the USSR. A communist would have abolished it. He did not get rid of surplus value. Instead, he made sure that a new governing class benefited from it instead of the old capitalist class. He was not concerned with establishing any kind of socialist society. Although he was a hypocrite, his assessment of bourgeois democracy is valid. 

 

All economic systems, from the far right to the far left, can be abused by government. I do not pretend that Marxist systems (or at least attempts to establish them) are exempt. Just because so-called socialist states have had corruption does not mean that there isn't a problem with capitalism. Also, the USSR is a poor example as it was state capitalist, not socialist. https://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1941/ussr-capitalist.htm

 

In capitalist societies, some individuals have more wealth (and, by extension, political power) than others. In this case, the economic system's failures cause the government's failures.

 

Aw, do you think the answer to corruption is Socialism?

Capitalism is great at resolving corruption when corporations are kept out of politics.

Not just to corruption.

 

How do you propose we keep corporations out of politics? Banning Super PACs is a good start. But how do we prevent bribes? Should we deny CEOs the right to run for political office so that their interests aren't placed above ours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now