Russia and China, Communism may make a move on entire world in the Future.

[52ndStreet]

We are all well aware of how Russia and China have been given a new Economic transfusion.Thanks to global oil demand, and an industrial boom in China, and Asia;Communism, has been given new life now in the twenty first
century.

As America and Europe economies struggle with inflation,the communist systems
seem maggicaly resilient, and adaptive.They did in fact predict that the capitalist
would price gouge themselves into total destruction?!.

What will the future hold,now with the revitalized Russian Bear on the prowl,and the Chinese Dragon refueling it self for a major fire breathing conflict,whenever that may materialize?.

Does the good old American Eagle have chance.
I welcome all your input to these situations.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

1) Russia is not a communist country.
2) China is "communist" in words only. They are simply an authoritarian regime that barely attempts to preserve some sort of connection with socialist rhetoric.

In fact, when Russia was a "communist" country, it was it's "communist" economy that basically ran the whole USSR to the ground. And it was basically the same with China, and it would've been the same as the USSR if the Chinese hadn't jumped ship after 1979 and stopped the idiotic "communist" economy they were implementing.

I put "communism" in quotation because there is no such thing as a "communist country". It's basically an oxymoron, is what it is. Look at what the names of the countries are... SOVIET Republic of X, Union of SOCIALIST Republics, etc. Communism is just an idea; the supposed end product of socialism. In reality, these states had really very little to do with communism, and with real socialism little more, besides of course the rhetoric.

So I don't know what your argument is. Are you arguing that more authoritarian governments seem 'better' at economic development? That might be an interesting discussion, but it's been done to death. There is a little superficial evidence that that is the case (if you're interested, check out Samuel Huntington), but no in-depth study has shown that, and in effect it has shown the opposite, the freer the society the better the chances of success in the long run. Just think logically- an isolated authoritarian state is like a body without pain; it can't feel the pain, so it doesn't react to it, until it is too late. A freer, democratic state, with the most electoral choices open is a body receptive to it's pain, it can react and correct itself because the pain is felt 'electorally' .

 

[52ndStreet]

1) Russia is not a communist country.
2) China is "communist" in words only. They are simply an authoritarian regime that barely attempts to preserve some sort of connection with socialist rhetoric.

In fact, when Russia was a "communist" country, it was it's "communist" economy that basically ran the whole USSR to the ground. And it was basically the same with China, and it would've been the same as the USSR if the Chinese hadn't jumped ship after 1979 and stopped the idiotic "communist" economy they were implementing.

I put "communism" in quotation because there is no such thing as a "communist country". It's basically an oxymoron, is what it is. Look at what the names of the countries are... SOVIET Republic of X, Union of SOCIALIST Republics, etc. Communism is just an idea; the supposed end product of socialism. In reality, these states had really very little to do with communism, and with real socialism little more, besides of course the rhetoric.

So I don't know what your argument is. Are you arguing that more authoritarian governments seem 'better' at economic development? That might be an interesting discussion, but it's been done to death. There is a little superficial evidence that that is the case (if you're interested, check out Samuel Huntington), but no in-depth study has shown that, and in effect it has shown the opposite, the freer the society the better the chances of success in the long run. Just think logically- an isolated authoritarian state is like a body without pain; it can't feel the pain, so it doesn't react to it, until it is too late. A freer, democratic state, with the most electoral choices open is a body receptive to it's pain, it can react and correct itself because the pain is felt 'electorally' .

They are still theorheticaly communist in many areas of their government.
I reject your argument.There are still many Communist hard liners within these countries governments.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

They are still theorheticaly communist in many areas of their government.
I reject your argument.There are still many Communist hard liners within these countries governments.

Man, you know how much the 'Communist' Party polls in Russia? I think it's somewhere along 0.5% of the vote. There's more neo-nazis in Russia than communists. Communism is dead and buried, pretty much everywhere. The Communist Party of China? A bunch of gangsters is what they are. "Communist" hard-liners, communist hard-liners that believe in what? What does a communist believe, anyway? What is a communist?

What you have in China and Russia, if anything, is statist extremists, not "communists" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Tristan]

They are still theorheticaly communist in many areas of their government.
I reject your argument.There are still many Communist hard liners within these countries governments.

They are trying to eat their cake and have it too.

To the extent that they have allowed more capitalism (via Special Economic Zones) they have more and greater economic success.

Where they continue to excerpt hard line, socialistic control they remain backwards and regressing. The future of China (Russia has allowed far less freedom) depends on their ability to keep the jeanie in the bottle. Freedom is like toothpaste, once you have it out, it's very hard to put back in the tube.

SEZ's...
Special Economic Zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On edit:
Least we forget the clearest (and often ignored) example to the clashing world opinions on economics... see North and South Korea.

 

[mightypeon]

Actually, Germany is significantly more "socialist" than both of them, if you look at the relative amount of money going into "social services". I would guess you could easily add all of northern europe to that list too.

Concerning Authoritative via Democratic efficiency on economic matters:
If an authoritarian system spots a perceived problem they can solve it in a very direct way. F.E. if chinese firms would start to outsource in a matter that is threatening "social peace", the gouverment could easily stop that. However, spotting this problems will likely need a relativly "free press", and "free presses" have no synergy with beeing authoritarian.

 

[editec]

BIG Capital generally loves working with authoritarian governments.

Big capital works well with such governments all over the world, right now.

And it doesn't much matter what political/economic system they're pretending to be either, just so long as they can maintain order well enough for Big Capital to do what it wants without too much interfere3nce or without having to pay off too many people.

Why?

Because authoritarian governments crush unions, limit free speech, usually ignore environmental problems, and make it easy to know who to bribe to insure that get things done.

Where do you folks think China originally got the capital investment to begin this industrialization they're enjoying now? Russia?!

As to Socialism V Communism?

Authoritarian socialism is evil as is every other form of extreme authoritarianist system.

Communism, much like Libertopianism is a theoretical poltical/economic system whereby people are all so on board with the way things work that NO GOVERNMENT IS NECESSARY.

There never has, nor do I think there ever will be a Communist society of any size

And the small experimental utopian socialist and communist societies which have tried all tended to fail, too.

The very idea that such a system populated by human beings will work is of course, proposerous.

About the best that mankind can hope for is a system which isn't too corrupt, which isn't too authoritarian, and which serves most of the people pretty well, and which doesn't single out some scapegoat group to punish, just to keep the rest of the people in line.

One of these days, mankind might actually create such a society, (America came about as close as any society that I can think of) but to date, I have yet to see any government or society that truly impressed me for any length of time.

Why?

Because, ultimately power corrupts.​

 

[52ndStreet]

BIG Capital generally loves working with authoritarian governments.

Big capital works well with such governments all over the world, right now.

And it doesn't much matter what political/economic system they're pretending to be either, just so long as they can maintain order well enough for Big Capital to do what it wants without too much interfere3nce or without having to pay off too many people.

Why?

Because authoritarian governments crush unions, limit free speech, usually ignore environmental problems, and make it easy to know who to bribe to insure that get things done.

Where do you folks think China originally got the capital investment to begin this industrialization they're enjoying now? Russia?!

As to Socialism V Communism?

Authoritarian socialism is evil as is every other form of extreme authoritarianist system.

Communism, much like Libertopianism is a theoretical poltical/economic system whereby people are all so on board with the way things work that NO GOVERNMENT IS NECESSARY.

There never has, nor do I think there ever will be a Communist society of any size

And the small experimental utopian socialist and communist societies which have tried all tended to fail, too.

The very idea that such a system populated by human beings will work is of course, proposerous.

About the best that mankind can hope for is a system which isn't too corrupt, which isn't too authoritarian, and which serves most of the people pretty well, and which doesn't single out some scapegoat group to punish, just to keep the rest of the people in line.

One of these days, mankind might actually create such a society, (America came about as close as any society that I can think of) but to date, I have yet to see any government or society that truly impressed me for any length of time.

Why?

Because, ultimately power corrupts.​

So , where are we headed, with regards to the future, and Political ideologies for the entire world.?,more Capitalism,or more Communism mated with Capitalism?
I say Capitalism will eventually take over the World.Otherwise, the Chinese and the Russians would not be experimenting with capitalism,as they are now
doing.Once they get a taste of American Capitalism, they seem to be getting hooked on it.

 

[morpheus]

Capitalism will also fail -if it hasn't started to already- and true/pure capitalism never really existed either.

In the 21st century, we seem to be moving away from ideologies, and more towards pragmatic governing. Problems will be solved by sporting some compromise between the socialist and free-market ends of the spectrum, and the degree of socialism/free-market in any solution will depend on the individuality of the problem.

As much as we don't recognize it, the United States has social services ranging from social security to public libraries and public schools (and there's a possiblity of further "socialization" of the American education system, as urban activists challenge in court the constitutionality of the practice that public schools be funded by local property taxes hence children in wealthier municipalties are ovefunded at the expense of children in poorer districts).

At the same time, the free-market has been embraced by China, and has now been embraced by almost everyone left of centre on economic matters (except for a few hardliners); free market is seen as the wealth-creator which can churn out funds for a streamlined number of crucial social services such as health care which -in every developed nation except the United States- is largely socialized.

Additionally, in response to the more capitalized world of more recent years, criticisms of the capitalist system are becoming louder, more valid, and more relevant, as income disparities widen (when factoring in purchasing power and cost of living) and as firms seek cheap labour in poorer countries with minimum -if any- labour regulations (like 8-hour days, overtime pay, and safety standards).

Public-private cooperation has also proven a major success in intrastructure-building, not only in Europe, Canada, and East Asia, but even in the United States...another little-known fact.

Ideological capitalism -like communism- is another economic ideology that works great on paper, but is headed for the graveyard. For Americans, who adamantly cling on to the ideological paradigm they were raised with, in order for this to happen there may need to be some sort of economic/social shock that the current American socioeconomic system won't be able to handle (similar to how the 1929 economic crash shocked the system of the day, and begat economic and banking regulations).

Even the Islamic Fundamentalist ideology is starting to wane, as its adherents grow disillusioned with the movement.

There's a very good BBC Documentary on how ideology (whether capitalism, communism, Islamic fundamentalism, or whatever) is an excellent tool for controlling the public.

The film, titled The Power of Nightmares, argues that: as politics became boring in the post-Cold War world with politicians being tranformed into mere technocrats with the boring job of micromanaging daily life (rather than the inspirational ideological leaders who had come and gone throughout the 20th century, promising utopia), two new ideogical movements emerged and collided with each other: fundamentalist Islam and American neo-conservatism. These two movements started in the 1950s, and had parallel -yet intertwined- upbringings (and both were born out of disgust with the social liberties of the mid-20th century), only to become very powerful movements that will antagonize each other in the early 21st century. These ideologies were very good at controlling their respective peoples by providing them an idealist goal for their societies to aspire to, as well as promising their peoples to protect them from some "evil" enemy, real or imagined. Russian, European, and especially American foreign involvements in Muslim countries from Egypt to Afghanistan served to reinforce the Islamic fundamentlist's argument that protection of the Muslim world from evil outsiders is needed. Likewise, 9/11 served to reinfornce the neo-cons argument. Without each other, neither movement could control its respective population.

You can catch this documentary on YouTube. It was -unsurprisingly- never broadcasted in the United States. (It's a BBC documentary, but was also picked up by Canada's CBC. The documentary's filmmakers tried to have it shown on American TV, but to no success.)

The Power of Nightmares
The Rise of the Politics of Fear

Part 1: Baby It's Cold Outside
1/7 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjY_E7bYDVw]YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: Baby it's Cold Outside Part 1[/ame]
2/7 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GopLcmExts]YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: Baby it's Cold Outside Part 2[/ame]
3/7 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXMN9o2j9zE]YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: Baby it's Cold Outside Part 3[/ame]
4/7 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1Wq1yC8Dxw]YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: Baby it's Cold Outside Part 4[/ame]
5/7 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwuOfqOvn_Y]YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: Baby it's Cold Outside Part 5[/ame]
6/7 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-mH0fwyOqw]YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: Baby it's Cold Outside Part 6[/ame]
7/7 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k47TphbP_-Q]YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: Baby it's Cold Outside Part 7[/ame]

Part 2: The Phantom Victory
1/6 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgFglk7-yqQ]YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Phantom Victory Part 1[/ame]
2/6 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRBKnZWrHbg]YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Phantom Victory Part 2[/ame]
3/6 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps1zc17uo_c]YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Phantom Victory Part 3[/ame]
4/6 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAQpZgS4eFk]YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Phantom Victory Part 4[/ame]
5/6 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s_3jk-Ryj4]YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Phantom Victory Part 5[/ame]
6/6 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWAez4WWh-Y]YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Phantom Victory Part 6[/ame]

Part 3: The Shadows In The Cave
1/6 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRwCTUiiX1c]YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Shadows in The Cave Part 1[/ame]
2/6 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBmCtdmgX5c]YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Shadows in The Cave Part 2[/ame]
3/6 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkyS6sIMRL8]YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Shadows in The Cave Part 3[/ame]
4/6 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsMo4KY4E2c]YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Shadows in The Cave Part 4[/ame]
5/6 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDXd1sb97SI]YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Shadows in The Cave Part 5[/ame]
6/6 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7XGOpVgsFE]YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Shadows in The Cave Part 6[/ame]

 

[Working Man]

We are all well aware of how Russia and China have been given a new Economic transfusion.Thanks to global oil demand, and an industrial boom in China, and Asia;Communism, has been given new life now in the twenty first
century.

As America and Europe economies struggle with inflation,the communist systems
seem maggicaly resilient, and adaptive.They did in fact predict that the capitalist
would price gouge themselves into total destruction?!.

What will the future hold,now with the revitalized Russian Bear on the prowl,and the Chinese Dragon refueling it self for a major fire breathing conflict,whenever that may materialize?.

Does the good old American Eagle have chance.
I welcome all your input to these situations.

I doubt that the US could ever regain its might because the people who run the country don't care about America, or its people. And, too many of the American people, don't care about America, or the rest of the people. They are here to take what they can and screw the rest.

Why don't elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools, ever try to explain to kids what trade imbalances are, and how they hurt the future of the very same students who are in class???

 

[editec]

The joke in Russia is that the first noncommunist governments in Russia managed to do in about ten years what the communist failed to do in 80 years --- they made the Russian people long for a communism government.

 

[mightypeon]

Are yes, jokes about the many values of Communistical economys:
Here is my favourite:

Late at night in the Kreml, Stalin is happily plotting the execution of another group of perceived enemies as he gets a call from Mao.
Mao:"Comrade Stalin, Comrade Stalin, my economy sucks, I need 500 locomitives to industrialize!"
Stalin: "Ahh, relax, no problem youll get the locomotives"
Having done his good deed for international communism, Stalin returns to his plans of world revolution again.
Immidiatly, the telephone calls again.
Mao:"Comrade Stalin, it me, Chairman Mao, I need money to fund my industry, can you get me 2 billion dollars?"
Stalin: "No problem, they are on the way"
Slightly annoyed but happy to have, once again, displayed a great amount of international solidarity, Stalin gets ready to continue planning. However, once again the telephone rings.
Mao:"Comrade Stalin? Its me, uhhm I industrialized a bit to quickly and got a famine, I need 2 thousand tons of rice!"
Stalin awnsers "Look Chairman Mao, Locomotives and Money are no problem, but I dont know from where the east Germans are supposed to get rice."

 

[editec]

So , where are we headed, with regards to the future, and Political ideologies for the entire world.?,more Capitalism,or more Communism mated with Capitalism?

I suspect we're headed in the direction of weaker governments generally, and stronger international cartels of corporations.

Government will probably still exists, of course, and in the case of the USA I expect it will become increasingly authoritarian.

I say Capitalism will eventually take over the World.

I think you're right.

Otherwise, the Chinese and the Russians would not be experimenting with capitalism,as they are now
doing.Once they get a taste of American Capitalism, they seem to be getting hooked on it.

Agreed. Authoritarians prefer a rich nation to fleece than a poor one.

Social communism, a la Moa's China or Stalin's Russia is a failed experiment.

 

[editec]

Capitalism will also fail -if it hasn't started to already- and true/pure capitalism never really existed either.

To the extent we ever had it, I'd say the results have been mixed.

In the 21st century, we seem to be moving away from ideologies, and more towards pragmatic governing. Problems will be solved by sporting some compromise between the socialist and free-market ends of the spectrum, and the degree of socialism/free-market in any solution will depend on the individuality of the problem.

I hope you're right, but frankly, I doubt it.

As much as we don't recognize it, the United States has social services ranging from social security to public libraries and public schools (and there's a possiblity of further "socialization" of the American education system, as urban activists challenge in court the constitutionality of the practice that public schools be funded by local property taxes hence children in wealthier municipalties are ovefunded at the expense of children in poorer districts).

Well I certainly agree that funding education they way we're doing now no longer makes a lick of sense.

At the same time, the free-market has been embraced by China, and has now been embraced by almost everyone left of centre on economic matters (except for a few hardliners); free market is seen as the wealth-creator which can churn out funds for a streamlined number of crucial social services such as health care which -in every developed nation except the United States- is largely socialized.

A mixed economic system certainly seems necessary to mitigate the outcomes of capitalism's propensity to reward success and encourage crime for those who lost out in the capital game.

Additionally, in response to the more capitalized world of more recent years, criticisms of the capitalist system are becoming louder, more valid, and more relevant, as income disparities widen (when factoring in purchasing power and cost of living) and as firms seek cheap labour in poorer countries with minimum -if any- labour regulations (like 8-hour days, overtime pay, and safety standards).

Internationalism, for the FREE TRADE movement is certainly benefitting capital at the expense of the workers, no doubt about that. It's not just happening here in the USA, either.

Public-private cooperation has also proven a major success in intrastructure-building, not only in Europe, Canada, and East Asia, but even in the United States...another little-known fact.

I'd need to understand what you mean exactly.

Ideological capitalism -like communism- is another economic ideology that works great on paper, but is headed for the graveyard. For Americans, who adamantly cling on to the ideological paradigm they were raised with, in order for this to happen there may need to be some sort of economic/social shock that the current American socioeconomic system won't be able to handle (similar to how the 1929 economic crash shocked the system of the day, and begat economic and banking regulations).

Is you mean laisse fair capitalism, it has never existed, I quite agree.

Even the Islamic Fundamentalist ideology is starting to wane, as its adherents grow disillusioned with the movement.

The only thing propping that failed concept up is their hatred of the West

There's a very good BBC Documentary on how ideology (whether capitalism, communism, Islamic fundamentalism, or whatever) is an excellent tool for controlling the public.

Its the best tool in the social science shed, actually.

The film, titled The Power of Nightmares, argues that: as politics became boring in the post-Cold War world with politicians being tranformed into mere technocrats with the boring job of micromanaging daily life (rather than the inspirational ideological leaders who had come and gone throughout the 20th century, promising utopia), two new ideogical movements emerged and collided with each other: fundamentalist Islam and American neo-conservatism. These two movements started in the 1950s, and had parallel -yet intertwined- upbringings (and both were born out of disgust with the social liberties of the mid-20th century), only to become very powerful movements that will antagonize each other in the early 21st century. These ideologies were very good at controlling their respective peoples by providing them an idealist goal for their societies to aspire to, as well as promising their peoples to protect them from some "evil" enemy, real or imagined. Russian, European, and especially American foreign involvements in Muslim countries from Egypt to Afghanistan served to reinforce the Islamic fundamentlist's argument that protection of the Muslim world from evil outsiders is needed. Likewise, 9/11 served to reinfornce the neo-cons argument. Without each other, neither movement could control its respective population.

There's nothing like an outside threat to keep the team united

You can catch this documentary on YouTube. It was -unsurprisingly- never broadcasted in the United States. (It's a BBC documentary, but was also picked up by Canada's CBC. The documentary's filmmakers tried to have it shown on American TV, but to no success.)

The Power of Nightmares

The Rise of the Politics of Fear

Part 1: Baby It's Cold Outside
1/7 YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: Baby it's Cold Outside Part 1
2/7 YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: Baby it's Cold Outside Part 2
3/7 YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: Baby it's Cold Outside Part 3
4/7 YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: Baby it's Cold Outside Part 4
5/7 YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: Baby it's Cold Outside Part 5
6/7 YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: Baby it's Cold Outside Part 6
7/7 YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: Baby it's Cold Outside Part 7

Part 2: The Phantom Victory
1/6 YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Phantom Victory Part 1
2/6 YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Phantom Victory Part 2
3/6 YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Phantom Victory Part 3
4/6 YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Phantom Victory Part 4
5/6 YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Phantom Victory Part 5
6/6 YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Phantom Victory Part 6

Part 3: The Shadows In The Cave
1/6 YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Shadows in The Cave Part 1
2/6 YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Shadows in The Cave Part 2
3/6 YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Shadows in The Cave Part 3
4/6 YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Shadows in The Cave Part 4
5/6 YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Shadows in The Cave Part 5
6/6 YouTube - The Power of Nightmares: The Shadows in The Cave Part 6

I have seen some of these, but as yet haven't had the patience to sit through them all.

Well done, I though.

 

[editec]

I doubt that the US could ever regain its might because the people who run the country don't care about America, or its people. And, too many of the American people, don't care about America, or the rest of the people. They are here to take what they can and screw the rest.

Plus, some of the natural advantages the USA once had, thanks to WWII and communism, are no longer ours alone.

Why don't elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools, ever try to explain to kids what trade imbalances are, and how they hurt the future of the very same students who are in class???

They're busy explaining to kids the scourge of sex before marriage and taking drugs not prescribed by the medical drug monopolists, I expect.

 

[morpheus]

I'd need to understand what you mean exactly.

As much as Americans glorify what they think is a purely capitalist system, the reality is that the private and public sectors work together on a lot of things, particularly in the fields of transportation infrastructure. This is an increasingly popular way of doing things in other countries, and has been practiced to some extent in the United States for some time now. Like toll motorways, for example. Partly state-owned, partly privately-owned, or state-owned and privately-run...often times, public-private cooperation of this sort is much more effecient in building new projects (and the completed project more effective) than relying only on the private or public sector alone. Other examples are airports and urban transit systems.

Capitalist purists complain about subsidies given to Amtrak, but they completely neglect how the government indirectly subsidizes the automobile and airline industries: when national, regional, and local governments foot the bill (either the entire bill, or part of the bill) for building and maintaining airports and roads, they're in effect subsidizing air travel and car travel. In the age of cars and air travel, rail serves a new purpose, and has found a new niche: if only the US government would invest more in this. Given high gas prices and global warming, and given how traffic-jammed airports have become, rail is a much more sensible option for shorter distances and for densely populated areas (like Boston-New York-Phildelphia-Washington or Milwaukee-Chicago-St Louis). A high speed rail line, for example, connecting these cities, and operating on the electricity grid (which relies partly on nuclear and hydroelectric, not entirely on fossil fuels) makes a lot of sense: time-wise, economically, environmentally. And I mean a real high speed system, not a moderately fast train that shares tracks with conventional trains like Acela. A real high speed train can take you from Washington Union Station to the heart of Manahattan in much faster time than air travel would: no need to commute all the way to/from IAD/BWI/JFK/EWR/LGA, no waiting in lines at check in and security, no waiting at baggage claim, no flight delays because of something that happened all the way in Texas...none of that.

Is you mean laisse fair capitalism, it has never existed, I quite agree.

Yes, pure unadulterated laissez fair.

BTW, you should definitely watch the documentary. It's broken down into three parts; you can watch each part on separate days (but in order). You gotta watch the clips in order too. I never found it boring. I think that te film does a good job at keeping us "entertained" throughout the film.

 

[Hum Dinger]

The real direction that the world is going in is a Capitalist-Liberal-Socialist hybrid. A society that will adapt to the circumstances thru the mechanism of democracy.

America is the greatest example of such a hybrid system. We may like to call ourselves capitalist, but our ascention to being the most successful nation in history has come thru a mix of these three systems:

A basic belief in a free-market as the default and preferable system. When that fails - as it often does, the first recourse is liberalism - i.e. regulating particular industries in ways that are appropriate to those industries. When all else fails and only when a particular industry is vital to the general welfare, socialism has been employed: Truman temporarily socialized the railroad industry and drafted railroad workers to force a strike settlement, the entire country has a socialist (public) school system, the military is an entirely socialist organization. Not to mention public transportation.

We tend to use the word 'public' as a substitute for 'socialist' in order to appease the free-market fanatics.

This makes for a very adaptable system. No one universal ideology is applied at any one time. Which system, and to what level each of these approaches is employed is done on an industry by industry basis and each may change at any time.

Unfortunately, what the free-marketers hate is that some industries work better when socialized and once they are socilaized the vast majority of the people will never allow it to be desocialized. No one (except a few fringe fanatics) in Germany, Great Britain, Canada or France would ever consider desocializing medicine.

What's even more interesting is the American Public/Private partnerships that have been employed in the utility industries. Though these have mostly been privatized recently, it won't be long until they're resocialized. They're screwing everybody and they won't last.

What's even more interesting is that these partnerships are based on the idea that government doesn't own them, stockholders do, but the government plays a big role in managing them. This provides the stockholders with secure if not tremendous profits, while safeguarding the interests of the general population.

Of course, the free-market fanatics see this coming and will fight it by promoting war to keep everyone at best preoccupied and at worst dead.

I'd expect that if John McCain gets elected WWIII will be soon to follow. He and his buddies have secure bomb shelters - they don't care about the rest of us.

I just wish that I'd be around afterwards to see what they're going to do when there's no one left to do the work for them. They'll die slowly and wish that they had recognized the value of working people sooner.

 

[AllieBaba]

WWIII is coming anyway. I just hope to have the right leader when it does. I don't want to be on the wrong side, because those who are the wrong side will ultimately be fighting against Christ, and that's not a place I want to be.

 

[dilloduck]

The real direction that the world is going in is a Capitalist-Liberal-Socialist hybrid. A society that will adapt to the circumstances thru the mechanism of democracy.

America is the greatest example of such a hybrid system. We may like to call ourselves capitalist, but our ascention to being the most successful nation in history has come thru a mix of these three systems:

A basic belief in a free-market as the default and preferable system. When that fails - as it often does, the first recourse is liberalism - i.e. regulating particular industries in ways that are appropriate to those industries. When all else fails and only when a particular industry is vital to the general welfare, socialism has been employed: Truman temporarily socialized the railroad industry and drafted railroad workers to force a strike settlement, the entire country has a socialist (public) school system, the military is an entirely socialist organization. Not to mention public transportation.

We tend to use the word 'public' as a substitute for 'socialist' in order to appease the free-market fanatics.

This makes for a very adaptable system. No one universal ideology is applied at any one time. Which system, and to what level each of these approaches is employed is done on an industry by industry basis and each may change at any time.

Unfortunately, what the free-marketers hate is that some industries work better when socialized and once they are socilaized the vast majority of the people will never allow it to be desocialized. No one (except a few fringe fanatics) in Germany, Great Britain, Canada or France would ever consider desocializing medicine.

What's even more interesting is the American Public/Private partnerships that have been employed in the utility industries. Though these have mostly been privatized recently, it won't be long until they're resocialized. They're screwing everybody and they won't last.

What's even more interesting is that these partnerships are based on the idea that government doesn't own them, stockholders do, but the government plays a big role in managing them. This provides the stockholders with secure if not tremendous profits, while safeguarding the interests of the general population.

Of course, the free-market fanatics see this coming and will fight it by promoting war to keep everyone at best preoccupied and at worst dead.

I'd expect that if John McCain gets elected WWIII will be soon to follow. He and his buddies have secure bomb shelters - they don't care about the rest of us.

I just wish that I'd be around afterwards to see what they're going to do when there's no one left to do the work for them. They'll die slowly and wish that they had recognized the value of working people sooner.

I'm already too occupied for something like a silly war to get my attention.