Jump to content

Capitalism vs communism (sustainable living, etc)


Jay
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hard to say what they would do with it CG. Wage another war probably! Not exactly foreign aid.

 

Gates wealth really pisses me off though. I don't think anyone should have that much money while some people don't even have food to eat. His net worth is currently hovering around $55 billion. According to my favorite statistics site www.nationmaster.com , he has more money than the Gross National Income of 134 different countries!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Gates wealth really pisses me off though. I don't think anyone should have that much money while some people don't even have food to eat.

 

I agree completely. It is beyond ing, and obviously we dont just mean him; others with even a fraction of his net worth as well is still too much for one person where so many children die of starvation daily in some parts of the globe. I wonder the extent to which he is a philanthropist (if at all)?

 

There is so much wrong with this crazy world. Like I said in another thread, we care more about keeping metal warm than we do about keeping beings warm. I am speaking of course about the existence of heated underground parking for cars, while people sleep on the streets through -40 degree temperatures and stray animals scramble to survive in the frigid temperatures also. ***sigh***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By loaning his money to research new medicines can be developed, for example.

 

And by giving more tax money to the government more poor people can afford the medicine they need through subsidies.

Yes. But you paying tax in the US would only benefit poor people in the US. In Africa the problems with malaria and AIDS are large. You paying tax in the US won't help these people.

You're paing for burger-eating, obese, smoking Americans instead of poor Somalian children with AIDS. It's not fair.

 

And the U.S. also provides more financial aid than any other country to Africa. I think their problems of poverty have more to do with interior corruption than whether they get money in the form of state aid or jobs created by private industry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will, do you got a source for that? I know that the US spends the smallest percentage of money of any industrialized nation on aid. (I don't have a source.) And that most of their aid is given to countries who turn around and buy military hardware from the US. I know Africa has fallen victim to the snake oil of the IMF/WB (loans with the stipulation of adopting right wing economic policies.) And they've economically gone way downhill since 1960. I wrote up a big report on it but lost it when my old computer died. No less than the former chief economist of the world bank (WB) Joseph Stiglitz has written extensively about this. (He got fired for daring to criticize despite being a Nobel Prize Winner.)

 

The idea that Africa is doing bad just because of corruption still begs the question, Why do they have corruption? Is it something in the water? Monumental bad luck? Or could it be related to that link I asked offense to read earlier? Along with the actions of the IMF/WB. (Hint: Imperialism) The logical result of capitalistm, whether it's the CIA or the British, or the French, or 200 years ago the Dutch. That's just how it works.

 

Anyway I'll eventually reply to the other stuff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that Africa is doing bad just because of corruption still begs the question, Why do they have corruption? Is it something in the water? Monumental bad luck? Or could it be related to that link I asked offense to read earlier? Along with the actions of the IMF/WB. (Hint: Imperialism) The logical result of capitalistm, whether it's the CIA or the British, or the French, or 200 years ago the Dutch. That's just how it works.

 

A lot of well-researched and well written info on this topic and many others here: http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/Intro.asp#RootCausesofProblems

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good link.

 

International trade and economic arrangements have done little to benefit the African people and has further exacerbated the problem. IMF/World Bank policies like Structural Adjustment have aggressively opened up African nations with disastrous effects, including the requirements to cut back on health, education (and AIDS is a huge problem), public services and so on, while growing food and extracting resources for export primarily, etc, thus continuing the colonial era arrangement.

 

The resulting increased poverty of Sub-Saharan Africa and the immense burden of debt has further crippled Africa's ability to develop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will, do you got a source for that?

 

I heard it from a professor I had a few years back named Ugboaja Ohaegbulam (also if I remember right, even though the U.S. spends more total dollars, we spend a smaller percentage of GNP on aid to Africa than most of the other wealthy nations). Anyway, Ohaegbulam is a really smart dude (google him there's all kinds of stuff to read by him if you're interested in this topic), and he's written all sorts of books and devoted his career to studying U.S. foreign policy towards Africa. I had one of his books up for sale on amazon for over a year after I finished reading it (see http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0820470910/qid=1136607332/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-1926661-6759919?s=books&v=glance&n=283155 ) but nobody bought it so I ended up donating my copy to a local library. I would donate it to anyone on here who is interested if I still had it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A comment about foreign aid:

As some of you might know the social democrats has ruled in Sweden more or less since WWII. Until about 10 years ago they were all about giving our excess food, giving as much money as possible so that people in Africa (and other places) wouldn't starve and so that they could build a functioning society. The social democrats in Sweden are waaaaay left of the democrat party in the US (we have the highest taxes in the west).

The last 10 years they have basically started to follow the retorics of the right when it comes to foreign aid. That is, as you know, aid by traid, i.e. neoliberlism. Even the left party in Sweden (former communists) have signs in their politics of this.

Don't get me wrong, aid has it's clear value in different catstrofies. Floodings, tsunamis, earthquakes, draught or what have you. But it won't build strong societies in the long run.

 

Today it pretty much works like this:

We (in the west) give ourself the upper hand by paying tax for communal goods that benefits us. We then tax poor people (through customs and quotas) of this earth so that they can't sell their produce to us. To be able to compete they have to lower the price of their produce. Add to this that we pay our farmers and large companies (through subventions) to stay and produce in our land. That makes the poor have to lower their prices even more. Then (no, I'm not finished ) we realize that we are overproducing in the west and we say "Ah, thei'r starving in Africa. Let's dump it at a dirt cheap prize to them.". When you do this the farmers in poor countries can't even sell their produce in their own country.

 

We have to stop this. Socialist aid politics is not working. We have been trying this method for 60 years and it's a dead end.

The boat is slowly turning. A lot of countries on this earth are looking at a brighter future than ever before. India are trying to erase poverty by 2020 and they are ahead of their plan. Under the socialist Indira Ghandi they went from poor to poorer.

 

Mind you, the aid issue is far from the only problem. Corruption, war, rascism, sexism, lack of water (largely due to pollution) and other things are at least as much troubling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to say what they would do with it CG. Wage another war probably! Not exactly foreign aid.

 

Gates wealth really pisses me off though. I don't think anyone should have that much money while some people don't even have food to eat. His net worth is currently hovering around $55 billion. According to my favorite statistics site www.nationmaster.com , he has more money than the Gross National Income of 134 different countries!

I can understand how it's pissing you off. That's how socialists win elections. I call it "niceism". I'm not a liberal because I like that he has money. For me it's all about the math.

When I was in Kenya and talked to people there do you think that they wanted us to steal Bills mone and give it to them? No. Free trade. They want Bill to buy passonfruit till it spurts out his ears. We could aid them by digging wells. However, the government is so corrupted that you can't go through them. If you want to help, donate a drill to a local farmer .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's good that you want to help people in the poor nations. I think most of the people on here want the same thing. I just don't understand how more free trade and less govt assistance would help them though... can you explain your perspective more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A lot of well-researched and well written info on this topic and many others here: http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/Intro.asp#RootCausesofProblems

Yes. We have been robbing Africa in all sorts of ways. Slavery and colony being two of the worst fellonies.

Today we are using other methods. We have full access to their market while thay have limited to no access to ours. Same shit, different day.

Maritius is one of the few countries (if not the only) in Africa that has been a free trade zone for a long time. Their economy has more or less exploded. Life longivety is up. Birth deaths are way down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
What's free communism?

"As regards the substance of anarchism itself, it was Kropotkin's aim to prove that communism - at least partial - has more chances of being established than collectivism, especially in communes taking the lead, and that free, or anarchist-communism is the only form of communism that has any chance of being accepted in civilized societies; communism and anarchy are therefore two terms of evolution which complete each other, the one rendering the other possible and acceptable." -- Petr Kropotkin, "Anarchism," Encyclopedia Britannica (1910).

Daniel, what about imperialism? You are aware of it I'd suppose. Country after country that tried to turn even to liberal policies had their government overthrown. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

The only few that survived that turned away from capitalism were the ones that turned to authoritarian high security type governments that had far less chance of coups nor any chance of successful funding of opposition candidates.

 

The hell the USSR went through from 1917 up till the end of WWII (at which point the state was completely corrupt) is a good example of why anarchism doesn't work. In that the Bolsheviks would have simply been overthrown immediately if they instead got rid of the transitional government and went straight to anarchy. They were attacked by 14 nations including the US, Britain and Germany. Furthermore many of the "bourgeoise" were against the new system and collaborated in treasonous activities. It was a miracle communism survived in any form at all considering what they had to deal with.

 

Unfortunately with Stalin's mysterious death and Beria's assasination (while attempting a last ditch effort to overthrow the corrupt beauracracy

http://eserver.org/clogic/2005/furr.html ), it was only a matter of time before the new ruling class decided to expropiate the property of the people (return to capitalism) With Gorbachev's theft the life expectancy dropped from 65 to 57 which means that a minimum of 15 million people died premature deaths. A holocaust that was simply ignored by the MSM in the celebration for the new "freedom".

 

With the successful smearing of Stalin into a genocidal dictator by Nazi and other Fascist elements (William Randolph Hearst for example, here's a good book online about the supposed genocidal famine. http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/tottlefraud.pdf and an article: http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html )

leftists ignore the history of the USSR thinking it nothing more than a total, horrific failure from which nothing can be learned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to share the following article.

 

It's Capitalism Or A Habitable Planet - You Can't Have Both

Our economic system is unsustainable by its very nature. The only response to climate chaos and peak oil is major social change

 

I'll have to come back to Jay's question, but one of the points in the article above is: "Solutions need to come from people themselves. But once set up, local autonomous groups need to be supported by technology transfers from state to community level."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to share the following article.

 

It's Capitalism Or A Habitable Planet - You Can't Have Both

Our economic system is unsustainable by its very nature. The only response to climate chaos and peak oil is major social change

 

Yeah I agree with this. I liked Thom Hartmann's book The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight on this issue. http://thomhartmann.com/last.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oil is not going to be the future source for energy. G.W. Bush knows this, americans know it and corporations know it.

The answere to this is not putting back 120 million Indians into poverty or try to get americans to live in cardboard boxes in the woods.

30 years ago it was a fact that all people i China couldn't have phones because there wasn't enough copper. Capitalism (or rather, innovations made in the name of capitalism) solved this problem. Today, thanks to optic fibre, the Chinese can have two phones each if they want to.

Yes, we need to force corporations, as well as citizens to switch to better forms of energy. This can be made effectively within the borders of capitalism.

If someone dumps their garbage on your yarn you probably want this to stop and you also want compensation for your property loss. So, if someone owns a lake (for example to sell for drinking water) and someone else is polluting the water that runs into the lake then the owner of that lake (who has to pay to cleaning the water to be able to get people to drink it) would want to be compensated for the loss.

The air can't be owned by any specific individual according to me, so it's community property. We are guarding this property very poorly today. It should be costful to pollute our property and thereby making us sick. This doesn't just go for corporations, it goes for private citizens too.

Sooner or later it will be too expensive to run things on oil (due to supply and demand) but we will find other means of producing energy. It's not the end of time. We have conqured far bigger problems earlier in history.

The capitalistic system already produces ideas and solutions we need only to value our own environment higher. Capitalism and a green planet are not contradictionary terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oil is not going to be the future source for energy. G.W. Bush knows this,

He's not really doing much about it.... A few little things positive. Not enough. Then also attacking Iraq and trying to open up Alaska to drilling.

 

americans know it

Do they? I would hazard the majority are clueless. This issue is pretty much not mentioned on corporate news whom decide what Americans will know anything about.

 

and corporations know it.

Corporations make short term profit. That is their goal. They couldn't care less about what happens 50 years from now.

 

The answere to this is not putting back 120 million Indians into poverty or try to get americans to live in cardboard boxes in the woods.

30 years ago it was a fact that all people i China couldn't have phones because there wasn't enough copper. Capitalism (or rather, innovations made in the name of capitalism) solved this problem. Today, thanks to optic fibre, the Chinese can have two phones each if they want to.

As an aside, the world can't support the industrialization of China. The planet cannot support the Chinese ever consuming like Americans. Something will have to give.

 

Yes, we need to force corporations, as well as citizens to switch to better forms of energy. This can be made effectively within the borders of capitalism.

But "forcing" isn't capitalism. "Forcing" is adding socialistic aspects into capitalism. Practically half of US citizens will argue against this point you've made, dismissing it as socialism and one step away from "stalinism." But I agree with you of course.

 

If someone dumps their garbage on your yarn you probably want this to stop and you also want compensation for your property loss. So, if someone owns a lake (for example to sell for drinking water) and someone else is polluting the water that runs into the lake then the owner of that lake (who has to pay to cleaning the water to be able to get people to drink it) would want to be compensated for the loss.

There is actually a right wing argument called the Couse (sp) theorem that won a nobel prize in economics that simply ignored the fact that pollution produced on one person's land will runoff to anothers. With managing to ignore something so obvious it attempted to argue it was against a person's interest to pollute their own land thus there was no need to regulate against pollution.

 

You know, in the US Bush came up with a wonderful Orwellian term called "voluntary laws" as in you only have to follow them if you want to. They were applied to many pollution regulation laws.

 

The air can't be owned by any specific individual according to me, so it's community property. We are guarding this property very poorly today. It should be costful to pollute our property and thereby making us sick. This doesn't just go for corporations, it goes for private citizens too.

Sooner or later it will be too expensive to run things on oil (due to supply and demand) but we will find other means of producing energy. It's not the end of time. We have conqured far bigger problems earlier in history.

The capitalistic system already produces ideas and solutions we need only to value our own environment higher. Capitalism and a green planet are not contradictionary terms.

I agree with everything except the last sentence. I would change that to say a capitalist system that at least had many, many more socialistic aspects than the current US system would not be contradictory with a green planet.

 

I talk about the US mainly because along with that being what I know, they're the ones doing the majority of the polluting.

 

We don't disagree as much as maybe you'd think Offense. Things are very different here in the US and when people talk about how they're a "capitalist" they mean they are REALLY a capitalist. They want close to no government, or literally no government. Except a huge army to attack 4th world countries apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. gov't gives subsidies to companies that produce ethanol and to E85 retailers. I have no idea why they don't increase those subsidies and go on an all out marketing campaign though. We have the technology to switch to E85 and making an ASAP switch to it would be a lot more efficient than waging war for Middle Eastern fossil fuels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not really doing much about it.... A few little things positive. Not enough. Then also attacking Iraq and trying to open up Alaska to drilling.

He's doing it the wrong way. Instead of putting more government funding into research of new energy sources (and bombing Iraq) he could penalize the ones who pollute our environment. It's the same thing as an individual dumping garbage on your lawn and not cleaning it up or paying you to do it.

This way there would be more incentives for corporations to find greener solutions both for themselves and their customers and the taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for others destroying their environment (which they own).

Do they? I would hazard the majority are clueless. This issue is pretty much not mentioned on corporate news whom decide what Americans will know anything about.

If you don't know about these things it's simply because you don't want to know. On the other hand I saw (I think it was on Jay Leno) a show where Americans were supposed to point at different countries of the world. When asked where USA were located one guy pointed at Gree.nland . But, hey you can't blame a guy for trying .

Corporations make short term profit. That is their goal. They couldn't care less about what happens 50 years from now.

A corporations social responsibility is to make profit for it's owners.

But, again I have to say that if they desroy something that is yours they should pay for it. If someone smashed your car with a hammer they would have to compensate the damage. I don't see the difference with destroying your air.

As an aside, the world can't support the industrialization of China. The planet cannot support the Chinese ever consuming like Americans. Something will have to give.

Supply and demand. Expensive, innefective solutions will fade and better, more effective solutions will take it's place. But, yes if the humanity had reached the end of the line, innnovationwise, then the industrialisation of China wouldn't be possible.

But "forcing" isn't capitalism. "Forcing" is adding socialistic aspects into capitalism. Practically half of US citizens will argue against this point you've made, dismissing it as socialism and one step away from "stalinism." But I agree with you of course.

Making someone pay for smashing your car is not against capitalism. Owners rights is a strong part of it.

We don't disagree as much as maybe you'd think Offense. Things are very different here in the US and when people talk about how they're a "capitalist" they mean they are REALLY a capitalist. They want close to no government, or literally no government. Except a huge army to attack 4th world countries apparently.

Good . I believe in government. It shouldn't run companies and it should be separated from the market (this goes both ways).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not really doing much about it.... A few little things positive. Not enough. Then also attacking Iraq and trying to open up Alaska to drilling.

He's doing it the wrong way. Instead of putting more government funding into research of new energy sources (and bombing Iraq) he could penalize the ones who pollute our environment. It's the same thing as an individual dumping garbage on your lawn and not cleaning it up or paying you to do it.

This way there would be more incentives for corporations to find greener solutions both for themselves and their customers and the taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for others destroying their environment (which they own).

Sounds good to me.

 

Do they? I would hazard the majority are clueless. This issue is pretty much not mentioned on corporate news whom decide what Americans will know anything about.

If you don't know about these things it's simply because you don't want to know. On the other hand I saw (I think it was on Jay Leno) a show where Americans were supposed to point at different countries of the world. When asked where USA were located one guy pointed at Gree.nland . But, hey you can't blame a guy for trying .

Well the majority of Americans believe in this mythical thing called "objective" news. And they will watch one or two TV channels and figure everything they need to know will be reported there. So they actually have no idea that they don't know anything. If they knew how ignorant they were, maybe they'd do something about it. But they generally think US corporate media is telling them what they need to know.

 

Corporations make short term profit. That is their goal. They couldn't care less about what happens 50 years from now.

A corporations social responsibility is to make profit for it's owners.

But, again I have to say that if they desroy something that is yours they should pay for it. If someone smashed your car with a hammer they would have to compensate the damage. I don't see the difference with destroying your air.

I can't see any problem with that. Unfortunately corporations are too powerful compared to government and government is unable to control their behavior (regulate pollution levels.)

 

But "forcing" isn't capitalism. "Forcing" is adding socialistic aspects into capitalism. Practically half of US citizens will argue against this point you've made, dismissing it as socialism and one step away from "stalinism." But I agree with you of course.

Making someone pay for smashing your car is not against capitalism. Owners rights is a strong part of it.

I like this argument of yours. I'll try to remember to use it on US rightwingers in the future.

 

We don't disagree as much as maybe you'd think Offense. Things are very different here in the US and when people talk about how they're a "capitalist" they mean they are REALLY a capitalist. They want close to no government, or literally no government. Except a huge army to attack 4th world countries apparently.

Good . I believe in government. It shouldn't run companies and it should be separated from the market (this goes both ways).

But the greatest economic growth in history occurred in the USSR from 1928 to 1940. No capitalist country has even come close to what they did. If not for their communist revolution, it is highly likely Germany would have defeated them during WW2 and who knows what would have happened then.

 

Meanwhile since 1960 I don't believe there has bee on a single third world country that has successfully industrialized. (Well, South Korea with very substantial help from the US to be a strong bulwark against communism and maybe one or two others for similar reasons.)

If anything most of these countries are even worse off. And they've been following the economic stipulations of the IMF and WB. Stipulations which are very far right.

 

Considering what the USSR did, it's hard to look at all these third world countries going nowhere without noting the obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see any problem with that. Unfortunately corporations are too powerful compared to government and government is unable to control their behavior (regulate pollution levels.)

It's because government and large corporations are sitting in each others laps. A free market is exactly what it means, free from political interfearance. This should go the other way too.

I like this argument of yours. I'll try to remember to use it on US rightwingers in the future.

Your welcome !

But the greatest economic growth in history occurred in the USSR from 1928 to 1940. No capitalist country has even come close to what they did. If not for their communist revolution, it is highly likely Germany would have defeated them during WW2 and who knows what would have happened then.

If 150 million people does basically nothing and when they do they do it ineffectively a new government consisting of fruit flies will make the economy grow.

The problem in Soviet wasn't growth it was supply and demand. A government can't control this as well as the market and this resulted in a boom in mathematics and a decline in bread.

Meanwhile since 1960 I don't believe there has bee on a single third world country that has successfully industrialized. (Well, South Korea with very substantial help from the US to be a strong bulwark against communism and maybe one or two others for similar reasons.)

If anything most of these countries are even worse off. And they've been following the economic stipulations of the IMF and WB. Stipulations which are very far right.

Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, Chech republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia. If trade is fare and the politics are liberal, things start to happen. It takes a few years, but it'll happen.

China, India, Thailand, Malaysia are also on the way although the amount of people are alot higher and it will therefore take more time.

Considering what the USSR did, it's hard to look at all these third world countries going nowhere without noting the obvious.

Alot of countries in south america is trying new ways to control all kinds of things on the market. Meanwhile they take loans to support the growth that will not happen on a market that is not free. They will fail. The US will be blamed for this nomatter what the US does. If they give loans, taxpayers in the US will get poorer because you will never see this money again. If the US don't give loans they will of course be the bad guy for not giving the loan. As an American you can't win unless these countries change their politics. This is what the IMF is trying to do and this is why the US (and most other governments) are supporting their work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the greatest economic growth in history occurred in the USSR from 1928 to 1940. No capitalist country has even come close to what they did. If not for their communist revolution, it is highly likely Germany would have defeated them during WW2 and who knows what would have happened then.

If 150 million people does basically nothing and when they do they do it ineffectively a new government consisting of fruit flies will make the economy grow.

The problem in Soviet wasn't growth it was supply and demand. A government can't control this as well as the market and this resulted in a boom in mathematics and a decline in bread.

The main problem with the Soviet Union was the relentless attack it faced from the capitalist world. As a result, early on having the degree of freedom/democracy that capitalist nations had, would have resulted in a coup exactly as happened in so many other nations as I provided a link about earlier. So then with an undemocratic bureacracy set in place corruption slowly creeped in. Gorbachev's faction finally simply stealing the resources of the people in 1991. The idea that this was a result of an economic collapse is a lie that both corrupt Soviets and capitalist powers were quite happy to spread.

 

 

Meanwhile since 1960 I don't believe there has bee on a single third world country that has successfully industrialized. (Well, South Korea with very substantial help from the US to be a strong bulwark against communism and maybe one or two others for similar reasons.)

If anything most of these countries are even worse off. And they've been following the economic stipulations of the IMF and WB. Stipulations which are very far right.

Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, Chech republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia. If trade is fare and the politics are liberal, things start to happen. It takes a few years, but it'll happen.

China, India, Thailand, Malaysia are also on the way although the amount of people are alot higher and it will therefore take more time.

The World Bank had a report which divided all the countries of the world into 4 economic tiers in 1960, 1978 and 1998. From 1960 to 1998 there were over 70 nations that dropped at least one tier and only 3 if I remember correctly, that rose at least one tier. I'm not aware of any miraculous turn around in the last few years during which the IMF and WB have followed the same policies that have already been conclusively proven a failure.

 

Considering what the USSR did, it's hard to look at all these third world countries going nowhere without noting the obvious.

Alot of countries in south america is trying new ways to control all kinds of things on the market. Meanwhile they take loans to support the growth that will not happen on a market that is not free. They will fail. The US will be blamed for this nomatter what the US does.

They have been following the free market directives of the IMF and WB. These extreme free market policies (that based on what you've expressed you don't actually support) have not worked at all, yet they continue to prescribe them and will not give loans unless nations follow them. Nobel prize winner in economics and former chief economist of the WB, Joseph Stiglitz, finally quit in (huh (dis gust) comes out as a smilie?) as he was directed to continue making these stipulations despite how obvious it was that they were not working. He wrote a book about the IMF called Globalization and it's Discontents that goes into detail about what a failure free market zealotry has been. Of course, as he's not "toeing the line" anymore, his credentials are dismissed and he is censored by the corporate media. But they can't stop him from publishing books.

 

If they give loans, taxpayers in the US will get poorer because you will never see this money again. If the US don't give loans they will of course be the bad guy for not giving the loan. As an American you can't win unless these countries change their politics. This is what the IMF is trying to do and this is why the US (and most other governments) are supporting their work.

Offense, in exchange for getting the loans they have what are called "structural adjustment programs" (SAPs). These programs usually consist of about 100 stipulations that the nation must follow in order to get the loans. These stipulations direct these nations to follow an economic policy that is far to the right of any successfully industrialized nation. The nations have been following these SAPs. The results has been a disaster. A holocaust. (Millions have died premature deaths as a reult.) The issue has been censored. I don't know what's going on where you live, but you will not hear a peep about the issue on TV or in newspapers in the US.

I doubt 2% of Americans even know what a SAP is.

 

Of course this isn't necessarily an argument for communism. Just an argument against free market zealotry, which based on what you've already said here, you don't support anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem with the Soviet Union was the relentless attack it faced from the capitalist world. As a result, early on having the degree of freedom/democracy that capitalist nations had, would have resulted in a coup exactly as happened in so many other nations as I provided a link about earlier. So then with an undemocratic bureacracy set in place corruption slowly creeped in. Gorbachev's faction finally simply stealing the resources of the people in 1991. The idea that this was a result of an economic collapse is a lie that both corrupt Soviets and capitalist powers were quite happy to spread.

There haven't been any communist states. Alot have tried, got into the dictatorship of the proletariat stage and then tried and tried in all kinds of ways to reach communism (which is a state free community). Noone even got close.

Capitalist countries have faced the same pressures as the communist countries (1/3 of the worlds population were under the dictatorship of the proletariat in the beginning of the 1980s). Capitalism obviously prevailed.

Corruption comes from the desparation. I have no doubt that Stalin and Pol Pot wanted the state free communist society. The question is, how do you get people to stop claiming ownership over their own body and mind?

As you know death penalty won't solve this. Death penalty won't solve anything in the long run. Sheer desperation in the hunt for communism by trying to exterminate the will to "own" one self killed somewhere between 20-80 million people. And the hunt isn't over yet.

The World Bank had a report which divided all the countries of the world into 4 economic tiers in 1960, 1978 and 1998. From 1960 to 1998 there were over 70 nations that dropped at least one tier and only 3 if I remember correctly, that rose at least one tier. I'm not aware of any miraculous turn around in the last few years during which the IMF and WB have followed the same policies that have already been conclusively proven a failure.

IMF and WB sets higher demands for loan giving today than before. Loaning money to someone that is constantly spending more than they earn is a bad idea. That's why the IMF failed. If you want a system that is spending more than it takes in, I say go for it, but you shouldn't finance it with loans. You have to find another way. This goes for both countries and individuals.

They have been following the free market directives of the IMF and WB. These extreme free market policies (that based on what you've expressed you don't actually support) have not worked at all, yet they continue to prescribe them and will not give loans unless nations follow them. Nobel prize winner in economics and former chief economist of the WB, Joseph Stiglitz, finally quit in (huh (dis gust) comes out as a smilie?) as he was directed to continue making these stipulations despite how obvious it was that they were not working. He wrote a book about the IMF called Globalization and it's Discontents that goes into detail about what a failure free market zealotry has been. Of course, as he's not "toeing the line" anymore, his credentials are dismissed and he is censored by the corporate media. But they can't stop him from publishing books.

If you don't like the conditions of the organisation that loans you money then find another way to finance your lifestyle.

Open letter to Stiglitz from a former collegue

Offense, in exchange for getting the loans they have what are called "structural adjustment programs" (SAPs). These programs usually consist of about 100 stipulations that the nation must follow in order to get the loans. These stipulations direct these nations to follow an economic policy that is far to the right of any successfully industrialized nation. The nations have been following these SAPs. The results has been a disaster. A holocaust. (Millions have died premature deaths as a reult.) The issue has been censored. I don't know what's going on where you live, but you will not hear a peep about the issue on TV or in newspapers in the US.

I doubt 2% of Americans even know what a SAP is.

A country that has a sane economy doesn't need loans from the WB. People in such a country are not starving. What you're saying is that in countries where people didn't starve (or got deseases) the WB all of a sudden changed that fact and effectively killed all those people that were fine before. I don't see the logic.

As I said before. Liberalism is a slow process. Socialism is fast. A liberal state has goals to be self sufficient and not dependant of others. A socialist state turns this around and takes loans to finance the project that is too expensive to bare fruit. So the question is: Do you work out a plan for growth first or do you take a loan and then hope for growth to pop up for no particular reason? How would an individual do and what would the bank recommend him?

Of course this isn't necessarily an argument for communism. Just an argument against free market zealotry, which based on what you've already said here, you don't support anyway.

I'm for free markets. I'm not a republican. CIA is not capitalism. Protectionism is defenately not capitalism. Wars to secure oil for USA is not capitalism (again protectionism). Laws based on fundamental christian values is not capitalism. Giving animal no rights is not capitalism (to treat animals as individuals is a political standpoint, much like the treatment of human beings).

You are trying to find a common ancestor for all the bad things in this world and you found something that you call capitalism. I say I believe in capitalism but as you and I are friends and seem to hit it off quite well I can't be a capitalist, because I'm not evil.

My view of capitalism is simply the will to get more out of ones labour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Offense74 basically I agree with you about communism. I don't think it was ever meant to be. Most people don't want a proletariat revolution and when you try to force people into it you get some pretty nasty results.

 

How extreme are you in liberalism though? In America the libertarian party takes the ultra free market approach and wants to do away with public schools, public roads, public policing etc. Do you believe in all that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How extreme are you in liberalism though? In America the libertarian party takes the ultra free market approach and wants to do away with public schools, public roads, public policing etc. Do you believe in all that?

Sounds almost like anarcho-capitalism. I don't believe in that. I believe in keeping it simple.

 

It's easier for everybody to have publicly owned roads. I also believe in having some spaces in the cities which are publicly owned (due to the fact that both extreme rights and lefts should be able to express there views in public).

 

Schools should be private, but we should have school tax for everybody so that everybody can get a good start in life.

 

The police should have violence monopoly. Prisons should be financed by taxes.

 

I think I stand basically where social liberalism where meant to be from the beginning. Today social liberals (at least in Europe) are trying to regulate everything. To me that only means more borders and I want to rid the borders.

 

The world today looks alot different than it did 30 years ago. In this forum for example people from all over the world are engaging in conversations even though there are economic and political borders between us. I buy fruit and DHA from USA and other vegan stuff from other places in the world. Being a vegan (a healthy one, that is) in Sweden would not be possible without globalization.

Whats keeping us from each other are fictious borders (through protectionism). Both me and Jay agree on that, I'm sure. I believe that if we could get rid of capital then these issues would resolve, but I don't believe in that since I believe that every individual on this planet will try to maximize profit for labour invested.

Both Jay and I have the same goals we just belive in different ways to get there and we have different views on what this mysterious "capital" is. I believe that it is an important part of us, good or bad, while (I think) Jay believes that it is a forced social structure that can be dissolved.

Don't bang on me too hard if I'm wrong Jay

Link to comment
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
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...