| bazmeistergen said: Damn I need my bed you bugger. It's difficult not to get cynical. However, I still see the leaders as human that do have beliefs and want, deep down, to help people. I think the system and over reliance on institutions creates this defense/attack mechanism, as does too much attachment to a personal ideology and identity. Identity is a shifting thing, like life itself. The trouble is that people get so deep into their own personal battles that the big picture is missed out. I despise the way the media has covered the election. It has been horrible. The soviet union was a joke of a nation, I agree on that. It was basically a slightly different version of the capitalistish system we have now. My perspective is an idealistic one, I am well aware of that, but as I said in the limits of national government essay, it is something that needs to be communicated. I don't want an EU/America/China superbloc system as it continues the current world system of division and competition based on scarcity. Entrenched interests exploit these divisions and are holding back progress based on the profit system. It's all a bit much to discuss on a thread. My views are still ever-changing and I'm so tired that I am liable to make errors in explanation. So I'll leave it there for now. Can I just ask you if you can clarify any areas where I need to rewrite stuff so my actual view isn't obscured. |
By saying that the Soviet Union was a 'sightly different version of the capitalistish system we have know', you prove that you really don't understand economics, nor the economic systems of various nations.
The USSR was one of the pinnacles for the command economy for decades. It had no capitalistic system. The vast majority of businesses, and employment were nationalized - that is, that the government was the owner, and that there was no need for greed among the business leaders, as the motive simply was not there. That is far and away from capitialism which calls for the privatization of all businesses. You know, 'free enterprise' means people being allowed to run/own/manage whatever they want, how they want.
There are many other nations that have had that same spirit of nationalization - all failed. Non-capitalistic systems have had, bar none, the worst track records in the history of the world in terms of empirical evidence against their success. The USSR failed, China (pre-Deng Xiaopeng) failed, Khmer Rouge failed, Cuba has mostly failed, Venezuala is failing before our eyes. Removing the capitalism from a society via nationalization (in an effort to remove 'greed' and 'self-interest') never, ever work. Every time its taken away - weather a farmer in Zimbabwe or a marketplace in Minsk, you remove the desire for people to be productive, and work in an efficient way. There always has to be risk/reward in the system for it to be effective. Yes, its not 'perfect' but it is the best that we have.
Here is a sport analogy - lets say that a team was required to hire a player for no less than 10 years...No matter his actions with the team or club, he must be on the roster. Likewise, another team may hire and fire their players at will, under the discretion of the coaching staff. Which team do you think is going to be better at the sport? So too is the difference between capitalism and command economies. Constriction of the business process by government is a major impetus to growth.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
