Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ericthebean, the economic advantages of independent self-determining enterprises competing within free open markets, (i.e. free enterprise) are acknowledged along almost the entire spectrum of those that holding opinions regarding economics. As we look toward the spectrum’s extreme left, it's found those advantages are less understood and/or acknowledged.
Similarly too many on the spectrum’s right have lesser consideration for specific factors and conditions that undermine what would otherwise be entirely free competitive enterprises. The consequences of unregulated entirely free enterprise in those circumstances are net loss of actual competition among purchasers or sellers or between purchasers and sellers.
The prices (and possibly the quality) of delivery services to customer sites via pipes or cables would be adversely effected (if not entirely financially unfeasible) if those delivery enterprises were not government regulated.
Our governments’ anti-trust, food and drug inspections, common carriers, buildings’ fire and zoning code regulations are all justified due such considerations.\
In some cases regardless of mutual agreement between contracting principles, legislatures have determined that some species of agreements are detrimental to our society’s interests and deemed to be illegal.
I agree with Senator Elizabeth Warner, a proponent of “free markets” but not “free-for-all markets”.
Guess what economic system was used by Native America tribes to be able to survive?
Native Americans? We're supposed to live like them? Their "economy"? Subsistence agriculture? Hunter/gatherers? 9% of Americans might be attracted to this romantic notion. Of them, 99.99% would quit after the first day of doing it.
Why is it that capitalists must put up walls to keep people out, and communists must do the opposite?
Communism has never been tried on a large scale. (And it wouldn't work because stored-labor is only half the picture. Capital represents so much more than just labor. Karl Marx was basically as immature about economics as Grover Norquist.)
Why not head over to the History forum and find out why Marxism and Maoism led to diaspora?
I'll concede that the Cato Institute has a right wing bias (although it is a moderate right wing bias, they are Libertarians), so let's look at the Economics department at George Mason University:
First of all, Lenin is not one of the originators of the concept. Marx and Engels were. Lenin was a social activist that applied the concept to his ideology.
Secondly, you are quoting claims rather than facts. Where and when exactly did Lenin say that re-education camps were required in communism as you stated?
Thirdly, one of your sources mentioned "War Communism", a term that the author made up rather than one used officially by communists. This makes it likely that the rest of the paragraph is also made up.
Lastly, the fact the re-education camps were established does not imply that they are required.
Just because it's interesting doesn't mean it works in the real world. I love fantasy fiction, but it has no basis in reality.
Capitalism in its purest form will also not work in the real world.
I believe that there is no one perfect system. I believe that an ideal system is a blend of the lessons learned from each system. Many countries, China included, have various economic and political systems that borrow from not a single theory but many theories.
I think part of the reason we have such issues discussing ways to improve the economic and political systems here in the US is that once "socialism" or "communism" enter into the discussion it is immediately discounted and thrown aside without truly understanding the underlying details that may present a solution.
This thread is an example of that.... instead of discussing the finer points of Capitalism, Socialism, Communism (others?), we degrade it into a debate of which is system represents the "greater evil" IN THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT. Its easier to point out the atrocities of any single implementation of any single system and label it as failure. The true mature discussion lies in the "why?" and what finer points can be extracted and learned.
(In software development, we are taught to think of architectural design and implementation separately. A failure in implementation (USSR, China etc) doesn't necessarily mean that the design (Socialism, Marxism, Communism etc.) is inherently flawed)
Until we as a nation can adequately debate these systems leaving behind preconceived notions we only have one acceptable economic/political system to discuss; Capitalism. We as a nation (general public) cannot even accept that socialism to a certain extent does exist here in the US and does so with some success.... in my mind that's pretty darn pathetic.
Marx wrote in Germany of the mid 19th century when Europe was barely out of feudalism. Those people who claim capitalism is the perfect system would do well to study what capitalism was doing during the late 18th through the latter 19th centuries. It wasnt all peaches and cream. In fact one can make the case that the only reason capitalism provided the kind of economic prosperity to the multitudes that it did was because of the labor movement, which fought bloody battles against the capitalists and their thug armies of hired guns.
Economics has always been intimately involved in the study of inequality of income. Heilbroner's book is a great introduction to a couple of centuries of that kind of study.
Thanks for reminding me of one of the best books I've ever read. This view of capitalism is the one that really allows a person the to see an expanded view of what capital unrestricted is capable of. Very few people I know have actually taken the time to study the works of Marx, a rather obscure economist in his time, and certainly no advocate of the despotic kinds of governments supposedly founded on his thoughts.
Marx and his dialectical views of economics was correct in his assumptions of capitalism being the system that would morph into the changed construct we know it to be today. A "mixed" economy and not a pure form of rule by an unfettered cabal of mercantilism.
The organized labor movement in America brought about those changes through a systematic challenging of the "right" of capital over that of a democracy. Most of Marx's thoughts centered on the fact of the proletariat resistance to the feudal system and it's first born, mercantilism, and subsequently capitalism.
To think that this view of economics could have been so twisted by the capital class through their grip on public education is somewhat disturbing on it's face, but understandable in light of what Marx's theories meant for the capitalists domination of labor. Any of the economic "isms" has to be administered in it's pure form to be adequately critiqued, thinking of Venezuela as a Marxist nation is laughable to those who have taken the time to read the old economists words.
I think he would have denounced the Venezuelan government for the dictatorship it is. Marx was a economist not a revolutionary, but ideas do give rise to action sometimes. There never has been a "Marxist" government that Marx himself would have approved of.
Marx predicted that the nature of change would prevail over the iron fisted rule by the few, we're slowly moving in that direction, China and India being prime examples of that change to a mixed economy and a changing social dynamic that allows workers interests to be a consideration in the pursuit of a more stable and wide spread economic benefit.
Some see this as a triumph of capitalism, but on closer scrutiny one can see the change as that of a workers triumph..And Marx was correct in assuming that the proletariat's demands (democracy) would triumph eventually. China has a long way to go to being a true democracy but we also need a lot of work on our own.
In our modern world the mixed economy will probably be the one that survives, the hybrid of the best of the isms, those changes that Marx predicted as something innate in economic systems has come to be the one thing we can count on. I'm confident that America will find it's own path with regard to what works best for the majority.
The tidal motion of labor and management interests are expected, the to and fro, going back and forth looking for that common ground, it's a fight that has been around for thousands of years. Marx was a blip on the economic radar, things have changed, but, that's what he was saying all along....
Until we as a nation can adequately debate these systems leaving behind preconceived notions we only have one acceptable economic/political system to discuss; Capitalism. We as a nation (general public) cannot even accept that socialism to a certain extent does exist here in the US and does so with some success.... in my mind that's pretty darn pathetic.
Look at the Alaska Permanent Fund -- that's PURE socialism right there. Public ownership of natural resources. But it's a very bad idea to walk up to the average Alaskan and call him or her a socialist. That's a good way to get punched in the face.
70 years of very successful pro-corporate propaganda.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
