Communism: Persuade Me

[Orwellian Huxly]

Of course the colonies didn't have capital. Britain had the capital. The colonies had the cheap labor and commodities for the taking. Britain did not build themselves up from nothing. They built themselves up on slavery, imperialism and the pillaging of their colonies. To say that they brought themselves up by their bootstraps so to speak is an absurd simplification of history.

Of course, but nonetheless the were pillaging and enslaving great big piles of nothing when compared to what China has available to it.

Hu? Really? Do you realize the extent of the British empire? Also another thing. I don't think a single country in the world was as rich as some of the corporations that exist today. The British did not "accumulate big piles of nothing". They accumulated one of the largest and richest empires in history.

[Orwellian Huxly]

I don't think a planned economy means that there is absolutely no private commerce at all. It merely means that the government has control over the economy, which the Chinese government does.

"Control over the economy"'s too vague a definition. By that, any country would be a planned economy.

Hmm, no. The Chinese government completely controls a huge majority of the economy.

[Trotskylvania]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it is.Still, on balance I'd say calling China a planned economy is probably pretty justified. What it is not, however, is a command economy, which the USSR and pre-Deng China were.

To be honest, in my economics class, command and control and planned economy were seen as synonyms and pretty much all my reads tend to use both terms interchangeably

What is the main difference in your opinion?

A matter of degree in part. But also, there are forms of planned economies, like Parecon, that are totally planned but also highly democratic and decentralized in nature.

On the other hand, command economies are by their very nature totalitarian, though that is not necessarily a bad thing. I would agree that certain conditional totalitarianisms, like the total-war mobilization during World War 2, were morally justified. For the period from 1942 to 1946, the US was a command economy, even though it retained nominal private ownership.

[Mongolian Khanate]

"Control over the economy"'s too vague a definition. By that, any country would be a planned economy.

Hmm, no. The Chinese government completely controls a huge majority of the economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GM_-_ ... _Index.png

Shit, they ain't doing so bad for a planned economy...

[Orwellian Huxly]

To be honest, in my economics class, command and control and planned economy were seen as synonyms and pretty much all my reads tend to use both terms interchangeably

What is the main difference in your opinion?

A matter of degree in part. But also, there are forms of planned economies, like Parecon, that are totally planned but also highly democratic and decentralized in nature.

On the other hand, command economies are by their very nature totalitarian, though that is not necessarily a bad thing. I would agree that certain conditional totalitarianisms, like the total-war mobilization during World War 2, were morally justified. For the period from 1942 to 1946, the US was a command economy, even though it retained nominal private ownership.

I pretty much agree with this^

[Mongolian Khanate]

To be honest, in my economics class, command and control and planned economy were seen as synonyms and pretty much all my reads tend to use both terms interchangeably

What is the main difference in your opinion?

A matter of degree in part. But also, there are forms of planned economies, like Parecon, that are totally planned but also highly democratic and decentralized in nature.

On the other hand, command economies are by their very nature totalitarian, though that is not necessarily a bad thing. I would agree that certain conditional totalitarianisms, like the total-war mobilization during World War 2, were morally justified. For the period from 1942 to 1946, the US was a command economy, even though it retained nominal private ownership.

Hmm, I see. Do you have any books to recommand on the subject?

[The Merchant Republics]

Of course, but nonetheless the were pillaging and enslaving great big piles of nothing when compared to what China has available to it.

Hu? Really? Do you realize the extent of the British empire? Also another thing. I don't think a single country in the world was as rich as some of the corporations that exist today. The British did not "accumulate big piles of nothing". They accumulated one of the largest and richest empires in history.

Indeed they did, though that itself was largely because of the Industrial Revolution.

The extent of the British Empire was great. And yet, for all the world never setting on it, the riches they found in all the world that was there's barely amount to a noticeable percentage of what Britain alone produced in the few decades. You must understand the concept of relativism, Britain's Empire was the most rich and largest Empire in history but relatively the profits they made on their colonies were miniscule compared to what China could have made on the US alone if it had been more liberal. Let alone the whole world. China began in a situation with a comparative advantage to produce and corporations which easily dwarfed Victorian Great Britain in wealth stood eager to utilize it. Yet it barely grew faster then the original pioneer of the revolution.

The reason for such a delay can not be said to be anything but the totalitarian control of the Communist party in China.

[Staenwald]

just out of interest, how much is car tax for my age there. 17 year old male. It can cost people our age up to £2500 here

What is the car tax? We have sales taxes, and personal property taxes on cars, but they are not dependent on age and gender of the owner and vary from state to state.

omg why did i say car tax....car insurance sorry.

[Trotskylvania]

A matter of degree in part. But also, there are forms of planned economies, like Parecon, that are totally planned but also highly democratic and decentralized in nature.

On the other hand, command economies are by their very nature totalitarian, though that is not necessarily a bad thing. I would agree that certain conditional totalitarianisms, like the total-war mobilization during World War 2, were morally justified. For the period from 1942 to 1946, the US was a command economy, even though it retained nominal private ownership.

Hmm, I see. Do you have any books to recommand on the subject?

That's a good question. And I'm afraid I really don't have a quick answer. Most existing dialogues on the nature of planned economies are heavily based on empirical examples, mostly the Soviet Union, and when the Cold War ended, there wasn't a lot demand for much academic inquiry into it.

[Orwellian Huxly]

Hu? Really? Do you realize the extent of the British empire? Also another thing. I don't think a single country in the world was as rich as some of the corporations that exist today. The British did not "accumulate big piles of nothing". They accumulated one of the largest and richest empires in history.

Indeed they did, though that itself was largely because of the Industrial Revolution.

The extent of the British Empire was great. And yet, for all the world never setting on it, the riches they found in all the world that was there's barely amount to a noticeable percentage of what Britain alone produced in the few decades. You must understand the concept of relativism, Britain's Empire was the most rich and largest Empire in history but relatively the profits they made on their colonies were miniscule compared to what China could have made on the US alone if it had been more liberal. Let alone the whole world. China began in a situation with a comparative advantage to produce and corporations which easily dwarfed Victorian Great Britain in wealth stood eager to utilize it. Yet it barely grew faster then the original pioneer of the revolution.

The reason for such a delay can not be said to be anything but the totalitarian control of the Communist party in China.

Well I think you're still oversimplifying. China's problems were not because of lack of liberalism. They were devastated in WW2, and after WW2 fought another 4 years of civil war. Cultural factors also played a part. For many years their economy floundered, somewhat because of natural disasters, somewhat because of incompetence by the government. My point is that there is a lot different factors that affect the economic development of a nation, and to compare two radically different countries such as Britain and China is comparing apples and oranges. Also incompetence of a government does not invalidate a certain ideology.

[Orwellian Huxly]

Hmm, I see. Do you have any books to recommand on the subject?

That's a good question. And I'm afraid I really don't have a quick answer. Most existing dialogues on the nature of planned economies are heavily based on empirical examples, mostly the Soviet Union, and when the Cold War ended, there wasn't a lot demand for much academic inquiry into it.

I recently bought a book about Marxist ideas. I think it is very original and being recent, relevant. It's called "Zombie Capitalism".

[The Merchant Republics]

Indeed they did, though that itself was largely because of the Industrial Revolution.

The extent of the British Empire was great. And yet, for all the world never setting on it, the riches they found in all the world that was there's barely amount to a noticeable percentage of what Britain alone produced in the few decades. You must understand the concept of relativism, Britain's Empire was the most rich and largest Empire in history but relatively the profits they made on their colonies were miniscule compared to what China could have made on the US alone if it had been more liberal. Let alone the whole world. China began in a situation with a comparative advantage to produce and corporations which easily dwarfed Victorian Great Britain in wealth stood eager to utilize it. Yet it barely grew faster then the original pioneer of the revolution.

The reason for such a delay can not be said to be anything but the totalitarian control of the Communist party in China.

Well I think you're still oversimplifying. China's problems were not because of lack of liberalism. They were devastated in WW2, and after WW2 fought another 4 years of civil war. Cultural factors also played a part. For many years their economy floundered, somewhat because of natural disasters, somewhat because of incompetence by the government. My point is that there is a lot different factors that affect the economic development of a nation, and to compare two radically different countries such as Britain and China is comparing apples and oranges. Also incompetence of a government does not invalidate a certain ideology.

So were many other nations.

Still, I am oversimplifying, one must to compare very unlike nations. I was simply trying to demonstrate what liberalism could have done for China, by demonstrating what it's oppressive state controls did not do. They did not in anyway hasten the economic growth of China, they harried along until it dragged the communist party kicking and screaming to capitalism, and will keep doing so until they get there.

[Staenwald]

Pardon? How Euro-Centric are you? I'm Canadian.

Anyways. I'd think there is an obvious correlation between the fact that in almost no African countries can you say "I'm a Capitalist" and be politically secure and the fact that Africa is generally a dirt-poor hellhole. For that matter it's pretty much political suicide everywhere in the world to call yourself a capitalist, left-wing drivel thought is quite mainstream, even though the average person is hardly a communist he eagerly agree that businesses ought to be chained by the state.

Better to remind yourself of exactly what the PRC has raised it's standard of living from, your statement would be more accurate if you phrased it like this, "Despite having only liberalized 30% of their economy, the standard of living in China has grown exponentially from where it began at 100% state-run.", look at Hong Kong if you want to see what a liberal China would have looked like.

However all of this seems to have nothing to do with what I wrote. Which was about the problems of selling real communism. It's easy to sell "To Each According To Need, From Each According to Ability", it's much harder to sell what that entails, i.e. your hard work subsidizing the lifestyles of the less productive and more needy. The whole process creates a perverse incentive to consume rather then produce. It relies on people's altruism and willingness to give, I don't deny humans to be capable of altruistic deeds, but the altruistic life-style save a few monks is not desirable for the average man.

I've found it funny that Marx could posit the world to be an entirely material one and yet simultaneously suggest that we should then devote ourselves to an immaterial good.

The ideal communist world seems to me to be an ant-farm, where people work for the good of all others and share willingly any goods they receive and most sickeningly that they not give not for the joy of giving but rather because they are mindless automatons to the good of the community, their lives unimportant and expendable. It is intensely material without all the distractions of the freed mind.

As far as I know, the party wants to make a profit and that's why China is the most dynamic economy in the world right now.

"Liberal" China was run by feudal landlords and crony capitalists who kept the majority of Chinese out of the game. Hong Kong was a subsidized mercantilist economy under British rule. But instead of reminiscing about the past we need to look at China today and also remember that it has used its competitive advantage to the fullest, and that the special economic zones that fuelled China's rapid growth (whole metropolises growing out of fishing villages in a few decades) could not have happened without centralized control and investment.

'the party wants to make a profit'- ahem, where is there any communism in that phrase....that would imply a totalitarian dictatorship which produces at all costs for the good of a few party members, whilst fucking over the normal Chinese people and making money from them at any cost, propelled by the use of force. The capitalist system you hate is far better than that, as all actions and cooperation is voluntary- in a free market anyway.

Hong Kong's economy was looked after by someone who upheld Adam Smith's theories of economics. It seemed to do quite a bit of good- all that economy freedom, considering Hong Kong was a fishing village in the 1950s, and is now second to America in GDP per capita and one of the most densely populated places on earth.

[Staenwald]

This would be about the point that I'd invoke party discipline and either shuffle Hashtag out of the limelight, or require him to repudiate his statements.

*sigh*

You made me lol

this^

[Staenwald]

An economy needs foreign investment to function, especially in China's case. But you are all acting like this money just magically caused whole cities to spring up out of basically nothing, because you just can't take off your ideological spectacles. The state provided incentives for foreign investment. The state created the special economic zones that employed millions of Chinese and lifted them out of peasanthood. The state made China the workshop of the world. The state maintains China's current growth rate. Because of the state, China will probably overtake the US in GDP by 2025. China's growing middle class, which did not exist on the scale it did before this decade, is making domestic spending go up.

What the f*ck is so hard to comprehend?

The US budget deficit has alot to do with the government being owned by corporations, and the fact that more and more people are going on welfare. I don't have to go into how as you can probably figure it out yourself.

Why did the chinese government need to set up "Special economic zones" to allow foreign investement? It wasn't an "incentive" as much as little spots freed from the Sky-high protectionism and economic restrictions that kept the rest of China isolated. They didn't fucking subsidy foreign investment: they allowed it to take place. It's like telling me Kwansong in fucking North Korea is creating jobs. Sure it does; why isn't the whole country made an special economic zone then? The very State was preventing investment elsewhere in the country.

You congratulate the State on creating jobs, I hate it for preventing it for so long.

omg... they've set up 'special economic zones' here in the UK. ...haha

[Staenwald]

China? A command-and-control economy? What have you been smoking lately?

China's economy is still mostly controlled by the government. They own some of the largest most successful companies in China. Did you think they'd turned libertarian or something? lol They are still governed by the Communist Party.

The UK government owns a monopoly so big it is only second to those of china- the NHS. Now you can't really claim to have a successful state controlled company if the money towards it comes from taxes forced out of people, who then have really no choice left to go anywhere else. State monopolies are not good examples of successful companies, because they can't fail.

[Staenwald]

Heavily reglemented, sure, but even the state-owned enterprises are now subject to market competition. We're nowhere near the planned economy of the USSR or that of Saudi Arabia

I don't think a planned economy means that there is absolutely no private commerce at all. It merely means that the government has control over the economy, which the Chinese government does.

the UK government has control over it's economy, almost every nation in the world has economies controlled by the government to some extent, and they're certainly not all planned economies. You'd have to be more specific.

[Staenwald]

That's a good question. And I'm afraid I really don't have a quick answer. Most existing dialogues on the nature of planned economies are heavily based on empirical examples, mostly the Soviet Union, and when the Cold War ended, there wasn't a lot demand for much academic inquiry into it.

I recently bought a book about Marxist ideas. I think it is very original and being recent, relevant. It's called "Zombie Capitalism".

becuase that really sounds like an impartial economic text...

[Orwellian Huxly]

Well I think you're still oversimplifying. China's problems were not because of lack of liberalism. They were devastated in WW2, and after WW2 fought another 4 years of civil war. Cultural factors also played a part. For many years their economy floundered, somewhat because of natural disasters, somewhat because of incompetence by the government. My point is that there is a lot different factors that affect the economic development of a nation, and to compare two radically different countries such as Britain and China is comparing apples and oranges. Also incompetence of a government does not invalidate a certain ideology.

So were many other nations.

Still, I am oversimplifying, one must to compare very unlike nations. I was simply trying to demonstrate what liberalism could have done for China, by demonstrating what it's oppressive state controls did not do. They did not in anyway hasten the economic growth of China, they harried along until it dragged the communist party kicking and screaming to capitalism, and will keep doing so until they get there.

I see what you're trying to say I guess. The problem is that there are inherent contradictions in the liberal model that increases the disparity of the populace. China is seeing this right now, as is the US. Hundreds of millions of Chinese are disconnected from the prosperity, and I agree with you that a Communist party that becomes separated from the goal of working for the proletariat becomes an evil, not a good. Britain achieved its wealth through imperialism. Imperialism by nature cannot be practiced by all countries, it dictates that there will be the rulers and the oppressed, the government of the empire taking from the colonies. In a similar nature there are inherent problems with capitalism because of similar contradictions. If the goal is to accumulate as much wealth as possible, those with wealth will become more advantaged than those who do not, and the power of that wealth will help the already rich to become even more rich as the have-nots become less powerful. This creates a growing gap of inequality. Eventually most of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very few. This is the case in the US. The bottom 50% of the population owns a mere 2.5 % of the wealth. Our democracy has been undermined by this disparity, because the wealth of the ultra rich allows them to disproportionally affect government. This gives them even more power to accumulate more wealth. This top heavy structure leads to a collapse, as is seen by the current economic woes of the world's capitalist countries.

[Orwellian Huxly]

I recently bought a book about Marxist ideas. I think it is very original and being recent, relevant. It's called "Zombie Capitalism".

becuase that really sounds like an impartial economic text...

And where exactly did I claim it was impartial? I said I thought it was original and relevant. I said nothing of impartiality.

[Orwellian Huxly]

China's economy is still mostly controlled by the government. They own some of the largest most successful companies in China. Did you think they'd turned libertarian or something? lol They are still governed by the Communist Party.

The UK government owns a monopoly so big it is only second to those of china- the NHS. Now you can't really claim to have a successful state controlled company if the money towards it comes from taxes forced out of people, who then have really no choice left to go anywhere else. State monopolies are not good examples of successful companies, because they can't fail.

There is no need for it to fail, if it is democratically controlled by the people. The fact that many parts of a capitalist economy must fail is one of the contradictions in capitalism.

[Staenwald]

becuase that really sounds like an impartial economic text...

And where exactly did I claim it was impartial? I said I thought it was original and relevant. I said nothing of impartiality.

I was being sarcastic, and I'm not sure you know what impartial means. Impartiality is a good thing.

[Staenwald]

The UK government owns a monopoly so big it is only second to those of china- the NHS. Now you can't really claim to have a successful state controlled company if the money towards it comes from taxes forced out of people, who then have really no choice left to go anywhere else. State monopolies are not good examples of successful companies, because they can't fail.

There is no need for it to fail, if it is democratically controlled by the people. The fact that many parts of a capitalist economy must fail is one of the contradictions in capitalism.

commie rhetoric. The Chinese economy is in no way democratically controlled, the country is not democratic. The NHS is only democratically control in terms of the government and government ministers, who are elected democratically (although the electoral system is being questioned for it's representative value), civil servants and employees of the NHS, who either have large controlling powers as chiefs, or powers through the unions for nurses. The people themselves have the elections, I'd not call that democratically controlled, rather...democratically legitimised, or democratically scrutinised through elections and the media.
Businesses fail because they are not efficient enough in competition, that is why a totally unhindered business has a monopoly until someone enters the market . Competition improves capitalism, it doesn't lead to it's destruction, well not in it's self- environmental implications are questioned.

[Orwellian Huxly]

And where exactly did I claim it was impartial? I said I thought it was original and relevant. I said nothing of impartiality.

I was being sarcastic, and I'm not sure you know what impartial means. Impartiality is a good thing.

I know you were being sarcastic. That is why I responded by saying that I never claimed impartiality. And do not insult my intelligence over an ideological disagreement. That just makes you look like a jackass.

[Orwellian Huxly]

There is no need for it to fail, if it is democratically controlled by the people. The fact that many parts of a capitalist economy must fail is one of the contradictions in capitalism.

commie rhetoric. The Chinese economy is in no way democratically controlled, the country is not democratic. The NHS is only democratically control in terms of the government and government ministers, who are elected democratically (although the electoral system is being questioned for it's representative value), civil servants and employees of the NHS, who either have large controlling powers as chiefs, or powers through the unions for nurses. The people themselves have the elections, I'd not call that democratically controlled, rather...democratically legitimised, or democratically scrutinised through elections and the media.
Businesses fail because they are not efficient enough in competition, that is why a totally unhindered business has a monopoly until someone enters the market . Competition improves capitalism, it doesn't lead to it's destruction, well not in it's self- environmental implications are questioned.

"commie rhetoric". Wow, your analytical skills are only surpassed by your eloquence. Of course its "commie rhetoric". I am a communist and I am using rhetoric (rhetoric by the way means the art of communicating, usually to persuade.) Thank you Capitan obvious. I never claimed that China was democratic. In fact if you paid attention I argued that the party has become alienated from the people. The UK is democratic, and the policies that govern the NHS are controlled by democratically elected representatives of the people.