MrRodgers
Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Edwynn
~FR~
"Can't call them Communists now" ...
You can't call them communists in any meaningful sense for at about 25 years now, as most of the world has known. Thanks for catching up. If the point was meant as a jab towards those who call Democrats communists, then that is as meaningless as anything else to them ("the jabbers").
In any event whatever is construed or defined by political scientist types as communism, the state ownership or whatever control of the 'means of production,' etc. or imperfect implementation thereof ...
in the boring economics terminology, Russia and China had (note the past tense, as in 25 yrs. past tense) what is referred to as a "command economy" as opposed to whatever variant of "demand economy" existing elsewhere. They did their 5 yr. plans, and one year determinations within that with advice from the committees as what they projected how much goods and services would be needed by people in the coming year, matched against projections of what "the people" would actually be able to produce, as directed/ordained by those with connections enough to have themselves in such position to so determine.
Which is to say that crony communism was (and its remnants still are) even worse than crony capitalism. And that the cronyism element and "political rent-seeking" infests and insinuates itself everywhere, whatever putative 'ideology,' economic or political.
quote:
It would likewise be very interesting to see how a legitimately regulated democratic, true socialist economy would work...we've never had one.
No such thing has existed, due in no small part to the fact that some European countries understand the distinction and the difference between an endeavor towards a social economy (which Denmark, Sweden, Germany, etc. have in however imperfect measure) vs. a "truly socialistic economy," which they want no part of.
Some people need to get out more, ideologically speaking.
The countries mentioned are inhabited by citizens who have roughly equal distrust and expectations of both business and government, as opposed to the all or nothing, one side or the other, contrived/false dichotomy warfare between the two that the media promotes in the US and UK.
The more realistic people in Central and Northern Europe (which is certainly not to say all of them) are not looking for any 'savior' in either government or the private sector, nor especially are they seeking 'salvation' from any hair-brained ideology.
Those that attain wealth through legitimate means are more than welcome to it, they just want that the public and private managers of the country and the economy do the same thing that all the workers are doing. That is: "Just do your damn job, just as we do. You expect of us, and we expect right back!"
I would agree with this for the most part but would make the distinction that the corruption in China, Russia and to an extent (the least) N. Korea, the beneficiaries of the economy are the cronies and for all practical purposes show varying levels of participation. China has beneficial corruption almost top to middle, precipitated by the requirement that all foreign business for example is done with them as a partner. But do not create millionaires and billionaires except for a few in govt. whereas in Russia, as long as you leave power alone, you can benefit from those who did steal the economy (the means of production in many cases) in the change over from govt. to private ownership.
More millionaires and billionaires in Russia, less lower level wealth obtained as their corruption isn't nearly as required. Vietnam is very similar to China, N. Korea is a slave state which is a complete aberration.
What this OP has rendered is the academic acquiescence in the term socialism as no longer being held to any true definition other than to suggest that to the extent that any economy asserted by govt. requiring a minimum service (return) to society at large, is thus automatically termed...socialistic.
Govt. requiring the economy as a whole to contribute to a national healthcare, or 4 weeks vacation or a minimum wage are thus 'socialists' measures. Which historically is not true, those requirements not representing any govt. ownership of any means of production.
So the ideology that you suggest is 'out there' becomes extremely malleable in that there is no true free market capitalism either (and for 80 years) as we (the US) and most in the west have state capitalism where govt. functions first to assume marketplace risk rather than and as a priority... over and above social risks.
Restoring bank ledgers even still leveraged at 25/1, the value of equities and GDP even as reflected in the trading of paper becomes much more important and enjoys a higher priority than preserving jobs, buying power and home ownership (equity) and...still does.
< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 10/7/2014 11:15:02 PM >
|
RE: Can't call them communists now. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread