Not sure Republicans understand difference between "capitalism" and "exploitation"

[Quantum Windbag]

Please, feel free to attempt to nuance my statement by pointing to other formerly socialist countries that are moving towards capitalism to prove me wrong, I enjoy the smile I get when I refute the idiots who try to defend socialism and the totalitarian governments that result when it is implemented.

There have been plent of totalitarian governments under capitalism. It's the norm in the world. You may contend that China is "moving toward capitalism" but they're still socialist and I don't see the Chinese Government handing over the keys to the car any time soon. Same's true for Vietnam.

You also contend that Socialism has failed every time it's been implemented, but even with the USSR - despite the fact that Communism ultimately failed in '89 - I believe it would be overly simplistic to say that Socialism failed in that country. It was their form of government for 70 years. They repelled the 2nd most aggressive invasion in the history of the world under Socialsim and were a primary participant in 1st. They became the second most powerful country in the world under Socialism. They were the first to put a man in space. They spread the ideaology to their neighbors and to those further afield.

"I don't like it" does not equal "it failed."

Can I prove that China is moving toward capitalism? Do I really have to? Do you live under a rock?

Chinese economic reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[samjones]

Can I prove that China is moving toward capitalism? Do I really have to? Do you live under a rock?

Chinese economic reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"moving toward capitalism?" So you then admit that they are not actually capitalist and their success as the world's largest economy was achieved under socialism? I'll agree. In fact, I would say honestly that China still very, very, very much looks like a centrally planned, Socialist economy to me where the government controls the banking sector and vrtually all aspects of development, including who can start companies and where. Who can build buildings.... indeed - they mandate who has to build buildings and at what price. Who can invest in what. What people can say about investments. How money enters and leaves their economy. How much of what factories produce, etc., etc.

I'll agree that the reforms have been a move in the capitalist direction, but I would hardly call China capitalist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can I prove that China is moving toward capitalism? Do I really have to? Do you live under a rock?

Chinese economic reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"moving toward capitalism?" So you then admit that they are not actually capitalist and their success as the world's largest economy was achieved under socialism? I'll agree. In fact, I would say honestly that China still very, very, very much looks like a centrally planned, Socialist economy to me where the government controls the banking sector and vrtually all aspects of development, including who can start companies and where. Who can build buildings.... indeed - they mandate who has to build buildings and at what price. Who can invest in what. What people can say about investments. How money enters and leaves their economy. How much of what factories produce, etc., etc.

I'll agree that the reforms have been a move in the capitalist direction, but I would hardly call China capitalist.

No, I would say that there success was achieved despite socialism. If socilaism was going to work it would have worked before 1980 when they were a purely socialist country, not after they decided to use capitalism.

My statement still stands, socialism has failed every time it has been implemented. China may not be a capitalist economy, something I never claimed in the first place, but they are not socialist either, which is what you tried to claim when using them to rebut my point that socialism has failed every time it has been implemented.

I told you I would repeat it.

 

[samjones]

My statement still stands, socialism has failed every time it has been implemented. China may not be a capitalist economy, something I never claimed in the first place, but they are not socialist either, which is what you tried to claim when using them to rebut my point that socialism has failed every time it has been implemented.

Your statement remains incorrect.

Not once, but twice socialist economies have risen to the top of the global food chain. The USSR was surely the 2nd most powerful country on the planet for about, say, 40 years and PRChina is the 2nd largest economy on the planet right now. They own the mortgage on our houses.

These are classic, classic, classic socialist economies. For a more scientific view, one should turn to Africa where, in the wake of colonialism, you can really see some of the differences between a country that went one way (Congo, for instance) and their friend and neighbor that went the other (Zaire, for instance).

In that environment, it's hard to say that one form of government definitely did better than the other - but the guy with the gun in the truck problem tends to skew results.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My statement still stands, socialism has failed every time it has been implemented. China may not be a capitalist economy, something I never claimed in the first place, but they are not socialist either, which is what you tried to claim when using them to rebut my point that socialism has failed every time it has been implemented.

Your statement remains incorrect.

Not once, but twice socialist economies have risen to the top of the global food chain. The USSR was surely the 2nd most powerful country on the planet for about, say, 40 years and PRChina is the 2nd largest economy on the planet right now. They own the mortgage on our houses.

These are classic, classic, classic socialist economies. For a more scientific view, one should turn to Africa where, in the wake of colonialism, you can really see some of the differences between a country that went one way (Congo, for instance) and their friend and neighbor that went the other (Zaire, for instance).

In that environment, it's hard to say that one form of government definitely did better than the other - but the guy with the gun in the truck problem tends to skew results.

The USSR? Are you trying to portray them as a success? You do realize that they had the wealth the Tsars had built up since 1917 and access to more natural resources, including the world's largest titanium deposits, to sustain them? My guess is that, if a tyrant had taken over and treated the economy as his own personal bank, it would have lasted at least 100 years. Socialism managed to collapse it in less than 50 years, quite an accomplishment.

As for China, I already pointed out how they changed from socialism to a capitalistic economy in 1980. That, and their vast natural resources that are now being developed by private enterprise, has jumped them from a third world economy to the modern economic powerhouse they are.

By the way, China actually purchases a small amount of US T-bills, they do not own the mortgage on anything much that I would worry about.

As for the Republic of Congo and Zaire, which of those economies am I supposed to be impressed with?

 

[Intense]

Please, feel free to attempt to nuance my statement by pointing to other formerly socialist countries that are moving towards capitalism to prove me wrong, I enjoy the smile I get when I refute the idiots who try to defend socialism and the totalitarian governments that result when it is implemented.

There have been plent of totalitarian governments under capitalism. It's the norm in the world. You may contend that China is "moving toward capitalism" but they're still socialist and I don't see the Chinese Government handing over the keys to the car any time soon. Same's true for Vietnam.

You also contend that Socialism has failed every time it's been implemented, but even with the USSR - despite the fact that Communism ultimately failed in '89 - I believe it would be overly simplistic to say that Socialism failed in that country. It was their form of government for 70 years. They repelled the 2nd most aggressive invasion in the history of the world under Socialsim and were a primary participant in 1st. They became the second most powerful country in the world under Socialism. They were the first to put a man in space. They spread the ideaology to their neighbors and to those further afield.

"I don't like it" does not equal "it failed."

Can I prove that China is moving toward capitalism? Do I really have to? Do you live under a rock?

Chinese economic reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

China is moving towards State Capitalism. There is a distinction.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There have been plent of totalitarian governments under capitalism. It's the norm in the world. You may contend that China is "moving toward capitalism" but they're still socialist and I don't see the Chinese Government handing over the keys to the car any time soon. Same's true for Vietnam.

You also contend that Socialism has failed every time it's been implemented, but even with the USSR - despite the fact that Communism ultimately failed in '89 - I believe it would be overly simplistic to say that Socialism failed in that country. It was their form of government for 70 years. They repelled the 2nd most aggressive invasion in the history of the world under Socialsim and were a primary participant in 1st. They became the second most powerful country in the world under Socialism. They were the first to put a man in space. They spread the ideaology to their neighbors and to those further afield.

"I don't like it" does not equal "it failed."

Can I prove that China is moving toward capitalism? Do I really have to? Do you live under a rock?

Chinese economic reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

China is moving towards State Capitalism. There is a distinction.

I know, but samjones is insisting that they are socialists and that is what is driving their economy. He refuses to admit that socialism is an unmitigated disaster.

 

[samjones]

The USSR? Are you trying to portray them as a success? You do realize that they had the wealth the Tsars had built up since 1917 and access to more natural resources, including the world's largest titanium deposits, to sustain them? My guess is that, if a tyrant had taken over and treated the economy as his own personal bank, it would have lasted at least 100 years. Socialism managed to collapse it in less than 50 years, quite an accomplishment.

No. Your guess would be 100% wrong. You should never underestimate how quickly a two-bit tyrant can blow through a country's wealth and you should never underestimate how badly they can squander the country's natural resources.

You have put yourself in a bad spot. You concluded that socialism was a failure without considering it's record and now you're trying to defend your conclusion by ignoring the facts.

The USSR

1. Held hegemony in Central Asia
2. Outright ruled Eastern Europe
3. Had strong influence in Africa and at least a needling influence in Latin America and the Carribean.
4. Repelled a Nazi invasion and truth-be-told defeated Nazi German in WWII - no mean feat
5. Had programs for developing spectacular scientists.
6. Served as the only existential threat the USA ever faced and did so for at least 40 years.
7. Most certainly managed to avoid collapse "in less than 50 years." - try doing the math again.

In fact the USA was lucky and fortunated that Soviet/Sino relations were always strained because if those 2 had ever really come together then I think that it's safe to say that Communism would have been the prevailing force globally.

 

[rdean]

I'm pretty sure Republicans believe "exploitation" is the BEST "capitalism".

Prosperity through lower wages. Kinda proves the point.

 

[grasptheobvious]

As food for thought .... the dollar is no longer a stable trustworthy means of barter since it is no longer backed by government holdings of gold at an internationally agreed upon value. That is the reason why since the 1970's we've watched a super inflating economic balloon which has finally burst! Government's answer to the problem has been to have more unbacked money (pretty little I.O.U.'s) printed and given to those who were most responsible for the ballooning ... and the bust!
Check the facts and let your brain work without any interference from media spin or political bias and the true picture will emerge .... albeit a rather nasty one.
(But keep smiling)

 

[samjones]

As food for thought .... the dollar is no longer a stable trustworthy means of barter since it is no longer backed by government holdings of gold at an internationally agreed upon value. That is the reason why since the 1970's we've watched a super inflating economic balloon which has finally burst! Government's answer to the problem has been to have more unbacked money (pretty little I.O.U.'s) printed and given to those who were most responsible for the ballooning ... and the bust!
Check the facts and let your brain work without any interference from media spin or political bias and the true picture will emerge .... albeit a rather nasty one.
(But keep smiling)

Like the Soviet Ruble, for instance. It was backed by gold - 1 Ruble = ~1/10th of a gram = ~buck and a quarter at 35 bucks an ounce.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Capitalism is where the rich get to fuck over the poor with impunity.

under capitalism the poor get to get rich too. Henry Ford and Bill Gates had to invent products that everyone could afford and that would improve their standard of living. Henry Ford gifted the automobile to mankind. He made millions or only $1.49 per car for gifting billions in automobiles to everyone.

It is far better to be poor today in America than it was to be rich 100 years ago because capitalism spreads the wealth very broadly.

 

[Rozman]

All I know is what I see on the silver screen.
A famous quote comes to mind about capitalism...
I am trying to remember the famous person who said

"Greed Is Good"...I don't know bout you all but I take comfort in that.
Also another famous quote..."The Dude abides".

If Romney wrecked a company maybe it was because the company was wreck able.

 

[samjones]

Capitalism is where the rich get to fuck over the poor with impunity.

under capitalism the poor get to get rich too. Henry Ford and Bill Gates had to invent products that everyone could afford and that would improve their standard of living. Henry Ford gifted the automobile to mankind. He made millions or only $1.49 per car for gifting billions in automobiles to everyone.

It is far better to be poor today in America than it was to be rich 100 years ago because capitalism spreads the wealth very broadly.

Henry Ford was certainly the face of the innovations that eventually ended up the mass-produced automobile. Bill Gates less so for the modern computer, but the concept is still the same.

This reminds me of last October when Steve Jobs died and was lauded by Appleidiots around the planet as the "inventor" of virtually everything computer related.... At least everything good.

Dennis Ritchie died the same month and practically nobody noticed.

Sorry that Steve Jobs died young, but let's get real. He never really "invented" anything.

 

[editec]

Can I prove that China is moving toward capitalism? Do I really have to? Do you live under a rock?

Chinese economic reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"moving toward capitalism?" So you then admit that they are not actually capitalist and their success as the world's largest economy was achieved under socialism? I'll agree. In fact, I would say honestly that China still very, very, very much looks like a centrally planned, Socialist economy to me where the government controls the banking sector and vrtually all aspects of development, including who can start companies and where. Who can build buildings.... indeed - they mandate who has to build buildings and at what price. Who can invest in what. What people can say about investments. How money enters and leaves their economy. How much of what factories produce, etc., etc.

I'll agree that the reforms have been a move in the capitalist direction, but I would hardly call China capitalist.

China's oligarchy has created ENTERPRISE ZONES where western capital can create factory complexes to exploit the Chinese workers. This is making the Chinese oligarchs wealthy and the western oligarchs wealthy,m too

The nation itself is still basically a sham-communist oligarcy.

 

[samjones]

China's oligarchy has created ENTERPRISE ZONES where western capital can create factory complexes to exploit the Chinese workers.

NB: In an academic description of a production process the word "exploit" does not automatically carry any positive or negative connotation.

Companies exploit an idle labor force or an untapped natural resource all the time. It isn't like on Dateline NBC when some 37 year old creep is exploiting a 12 year old boy.

 

[editec]

China's oligarchy has created ENTERPRISE ZONES where western capital can create factory complexes to exploit the Chinese workers.

NB: In an academic description of a production process the word "exploit" does not automatically carry any positive or negative connotation.

Companies exploit an idle labor force or an untapped natural resource all the time. It isn't like on Dateline NBC when some 37 year old creep is exploiting a 12 year old boy.

YOU should listen to this program about Shezen, China and the workers there, Sam.

I chose the word EXPLOIT precisely because it carries with it negative connotations of abuse.

Used as a verb in that context exploit means: to take advantage of a person or situation unethically or unjustly for one's own ends.

Seriously, listen to this radio essay about what it means to be a line worker in a CHINESE ENTERPRIZE zone.

EXPLOIT is the precisely the word to describe it.

There is nothing REMOTELY like capitalism as we know it, in China.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

All I will say on this is that no other economic system has raised the standard of living of the proletariat more than capitalism.

That, and the exploitation theory brought to the table by Marx is fatally flawed.

 

[sparky]

but any system can be prostituted, because they all incorporate inherent flaws

and we talk expoitation? this election cycle ought to be lousey with the economic blame game

~S~

 

[Truthmatters]

All I will say on this is that no other economic system has raised the standard of living of the proletariat more than capitalism.

That, and the exploitation theory brought to the table by Marx is fatally flawed.

wrong , fettered caplitalism has raised the standard of living of the proletariat.