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.
A country gets the economy its land, population and resources give it. For some reason probably going back to those 'olden' days of the Bolshis and their ilk the communist mind set put Russia on a particular way to the extent even with the advent of capitalism (see? I agree with your assessment there!) they still suffer from the vestiges of it and that is rampant corruption. It operates like rust in a broken-down machine. Rust sure looks like it hasn't a good night's sleep since '17!!
The corruption is bad because it is ingrained in Russian institutions and is virtually the normal way of doing business. So where is trust in all this? Simple a ghost simply hovering over Russian economic affairs. It has to be evident that laws are compromised to order that state of affairs.
All in all this has to be holding back Russia in making a better economic state. A state by the way that's very restricted to mainly few areas that are easily manipulated by global activities. Also let's add the fact of restricted political freedom as well.
I don't doubt that Russia is better economically than it was from many years ago but arguably the fruits haven't gone down to all segments of society even with all those energy rubles filling the coffers.
And lastly a question is does the population itself believe the country is creating a state that helps for each of the classes to better themselves? If you ask me the answer is no. If energy and natural resources are the only big tix what's left to offer some of them? Perhaps emigration?
Russia needs to get a handle on corruption and drive the mafia underground, containing them as much as possible. The problem is that Putin is the mafia and leader of the country. Russia needs business ethics and just plain ethics in general, one would think the Russian Orthodox Church would be facilitating progress in that area. Even back in our so called robber baron days, companies generally did not assassinate rivals from other companies and they used the courts to fight it out. The mafia in the US had operated under the rules that you don't kill a cop,, judge or important public officials, as the public backlash would be too great and put them out of business. To get on the right track, Russia needs good judges and law enforcement that can't be bought off, worker unions can help in the beginning stages to help the average worker, so long as they don't become French truck drivers on strike all the time or become too powerful, pricing themselves out of a job. I guess they need a lot of the things we got from the English who colonized us, JohnUK should go over there and show them how it's done, bet he'll have that place looking like Venezuela in no time, lol.
No. They have have moved to a form of fascism, where the corporations control and hoard the wealth. The top 1% are stinking rich while the rest grovel.
On the breakup of the USSR a team of economic advisers went there to guide them. The country was in great state to step up to the next step. No one owned anything. They told them not to sell common assets like land, natural resources, etc, and have all the "economic rent" (commonly created wealth) and revenue from natural resources pay all common services eliminating income and sales taxes. Of course the greedy at the top did not and wanted a USA type of system that meant they would be stinking rich and pull the strings of the politicians.
Wait a minute, are you telling me that a team of (American) economic advisers "guided" Russian government to not to "sell land and natural assets," but the "greedy on top" ( i.e. Russians) acted on their own accord?
If you think so, you have some reading to do;
So make no mistake, why post-Soviet Russia went "American way" of development, not some "socialist" European way, which it really should have.
At that, one should note that while in the US the "democratic institutions" controlling the power of the rich were already developed through time ( plus the overall wealthy society can allow itself the wide net of " private contributions" coming to the needy,) there were no instruments of this kind in the post-Soviet Russia. Therefore millions of people who "were not fitting into market reforms" were sentenced to death, officially, since the darling of IMF, then Russian prime-minister ( or whoever he was at that time) Gaidar acknowledged it publicly, that "people who can't fit into the market reforms" were doomed.
That's why when nowadays these neo-liberals from the nineties are coming out to "expose and denounce Putin," what do you think the common reaction of the Russians is?
Quote:
"Many of the workers in Walmart end up getting Medicaid, they get food stamps, they get affordable housing paid for by the taxpayers of this country while the Walton family remains the wealthiest family in America. If that is not obscene, I don’t know what is."
- Senator Bernie Sanders
"the Walton family's wealth equals the entire bottom 41.5 percent of families."
"The richest 400 Americans are worth more than the poorest 150 million Americans combined and those in the bottom 60 percent only hold 1.7 percent of the nation's wealth.
- Senator Bernie Sanders
If you think western capitalism serves all the people, you had better look in depth at the flawed system, and look hard. You are being ripped off big time.
I am not sure why are you telling me all this, because I live half of my life in the US; I came there in the "right time" to witness it all, the dissipation of the old institutions ( those moms and pops stores,) the birth of new corporations and the ultimate birth of the new "Walmart nation."
The problem with this is that in order to achieve "fairness" one must assume that human beings will not act in their own self-interest. Whatever the system, yes even socialism, it depends upon the economic rent and excess profit. In capitalism this flows to individuals and the state then appropriates a portion in order to provide for the functions of the state. In a socialist system the excess flows directly to the state to provide for the function of the state, but the state is also tasked with providing for everyones collective needs on an equal basis. Either way, the excess is appropriated.
One may argue that in theory the state being the collective of all the people should be the one to determine how to allocate the excess, but the state is composed of people and people are self-interested. Communism and socialism as enacted thus far have only resulted in oligarchy and inequality. People are naturally driven to pursue their own self-interest above the interests of others. Capitalism is not perfect, but at least it recognizes the truth of the human condition.
True that, yet when you are listening to Russians defending the Soviet system, they refuse to acknowledge this "recognition."
Where capitalism orients itself to the lowest denominator of the human nature, the communists ( socialists, call Russians whatever) prefer to orient themselves to the highest denominator.
Oh, that's all? I would argue that the human condition is predicated on unfairness.
I am well aware of the differences between communism and socialism. The use of the word "communism" in my previous post was a colloquiallism and not intended as a hard definition.
Socialism = From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds.
Communism = From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
Ergo, in socialism one is paid according to their contribution, while in communism one is paid according to their actual need regardless of their contribution. To follow the logic, socialism is an evolution of capitalism and the first form of the new society. Communism is the ultimate evolution of socialism and only achievable once abundance has been achieved and the mental and spiritual outlook of the people has been changed.
If you want to mean it in the context of what the various communist and socialist political parties tend to view as the goal of the "revolution" then:
Socialists: Believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own. The march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state.
Communists: Believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in. Socialism cannot be built merely by taking over and using the old capitalist machinery of government; the workers must destroy the old and set up their own new state apparatus.
Good enough?
There is one more point I have to make in addition to this. Where Anglo-Saxons ( I am talking about Americans in this case) quietly accept that "human condition is predicated on unfairness," and thus accept the economic system where one will always exploit the other, Russians ( well part of them, obviously, the "die hard" part ) refuse to accept this postulate which is basically somewhere down the line is described in the bible.) During Soviet times what Soviet authorities vehemently refused to do, was to allow anyone to work for anyone ( and thus being exploited for someone else's personal gain.) And "private enterprise" is basically built on hired labor. So without forbidding "private enterprise" per se, the Soviet system was very prohibitive towards the hired labor.
That is not to mention that even in pre-revolutionary times, Russian train of thought ( supported by the intellectuals) was doubting - no, rather denouncing the fairness of the world ruled by money, where America accepts this idea and thrives on it.
So it looks like the Russia/America conflict takes roots on a much deeper level, if not to say on "biblical level."
Status:
"A solution in search of a problem"
(set 15 days ago)
Location: New York Area
34,461 posts, read 16,559,118 times
Reputation: 29644
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
Thatcher had no idea of economics. Not an inkling. The woman was a complete and utter disaster. Governments print money, create it out of thin air, as do private banks.
Do you really think that money created "out of thin air" has any value? Ask a Weimar German.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
"Economic rent" seekers derive profit from stolen commons (common wealth)
Most successful capitalists derive profit from the surplus value of others' labor (The Walton family are the prime example).
And are the "economic tenants" better off if they don't make any money, out of a concern that someone will make more?
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
Both sets of behaviours tend to exacerbate economic and political inequality. Depending on the scale and the extent of contextual duress involved, the capitalist arrangements that involve seeking the surplus value of labor, can be as bad as, or worse than, those that appropriate "economic rent".
Are you memorizing a textbook for a college course of Marx somewhere?
"These economists took the incredible step of crafting a letter sent to Gorbachev in November of 1990, with a warning:
It is important that the rent of land be retained as a source of government revenue. While the governments of developed nations with market economies collect some of the rent of land in taxes, they do not collect nearly as much as they could and they therefore make unnecessary great use of taxes that impede their economies - taxes on such things as incomes, sales and the value of capital.
The letter was written by economist Nicolaus Tideman of Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Nearly thirty other economists, including several Nobel Prize winners, signed the letter. Gorbachev did not respond"
Oh, that's all? I would argue that the human condition is predicated on unfairness.
I and billions of others do not. The simple fact we organise into communities for mutual benefit disproves that theory.
The USA is a socialist society. It has free schools, police, firemen, roads, libraries, welfare, etc, when the need is there. The USA is just short on a full NHS, let us hope that comes.
Socialism can be said to be a safety net from the fallout of capitalism which also prevents grinding poverty. Sometimes many slip through the net.
Get rid of the excesses of capitalism, eliminating boom & busts, stopping private appropriation of the commons (common wealth), etc, then socialism and the government will be minimal. The government will have little need to intervene to clothe, feed, house and find work for people.
"These economists took the incredible step of crafting a letter sent to Gorbachev in November of 1990, with a warning:
It is important that the rent of land be retained as a source of government revenue. While the governments of developed nations with market economies collect some of the rent of land in taxes, they do not collect nearly as much as they could and they therefore make unnecessary great use of taxes that impede their economies - taxes on such things as incomes, sales and the value of capital.
The letter was written by economist Nicolaus Tideman of Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Nearly thirty other economists, including several Nobel Prize winners, signed the letter. Gorbachev did not respond"
Virtually every economist and other adviser from the West (and, in particular, from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund) has been pressing Russia to privatize land ownership, arguing this is key to conversion to a market economy.
The people advising the Russians to maintain the land as state holdings and to auction leases were an extreme minority and represented no formal institution or sanctioned mission. That kind of proves erasure's point that it was not a "team of American economic advisors", but it was a position held by a small group of economists that had some ties to counterparts in Russia.
Let's not also forget that Edward Dodson is rather fringe is he not? He is a Georgist and that's not exactly among mainstream economic thought, mainly for its ideas regarding how to implement Georgist principles in developed nations. Though, it has found some traction in the past in colonial holdings (particularly of Germany) as well as in Australia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, among others as well as some small communities in the US such as Arden, Delaware.
I and billions of others do not. The simple fact we organise into communities for mutual benefit disproves that theory.
We organize into communities for mutual benefit because doing so is within our own self-interest in order to gain the benefits that the community provides. People would not organize into communities for mutual detriment. Your example actually reinforces my point.
Quote:
The USA is a socialist society. It has free schools, police, firemen, roads, libraries, welfare, etc, when the need is there. The USA is just short on a full NHS, let us hope that comes.
Adam Smith's three roles of government:
1. National defense.
2. Administration of justice; maintenance of law and order.
3. The provision of certain public goods; roads, schools, infrastructure, etc.
Quote:
Socialism can be said to be a safety net from the fallout of capitalism which also prevents grinding poverty. Sometimes many slip through the net.
The "social safety net" does certainly exist in the US, as you pointed out above with programs such as welfare. However, such safety nets do not require a "socialist system" to exist. In fact one could argue that the existence of social safety nets within an otherwise capitalist society are actually closer to the communist ideal then what a socialist state would provide.
Remember...From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
The social safety net in an otherwise capitalist society provides for each according to their needs without any consideration for their deeds. I never argued that the US system did not have socialist aspects. I would argue that there is nothing wrong with a safety net for some who need it. Others need a trampoline. Of course the trick is defining the "some" and "others".
Quote:
Get rid of the excesses of capitalism, eliminating boom & busts, stopping private appropriation of the commons (common wealth), etc, then socialism and the government will be minimal. The government will have little need to intervene to clothe, feed, house and find work for people.
It's a wonderful thought, but impossible to achieve. The system you are proposing still requires a force to provide guidance on how the excess is used to benefit all. Once you introduce that into the equation, you require a group of people to do it. The human condition will result in those people following their own self-interest to exploit the excess. It is the story of the human condition.
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.
