Live UK political debates

[bazmeistergen]

mrstickball said:

bazmeistergen said:

Hi there.

Thanks for the reply. I think one thing I have been trying to say is that combat in debate is a bit daft. From my words I can see why you would think I don't know what I'm talking about, however, you are a bit presumptious to decide that what I said 'proves' that I don't understand the difference between state capitalism and more free market capitalism. You haven't tried to find out why I think the Soviet Union is very similar to the current economic system at all but this is because you have no idea about my perspective. The thing I have been trying to illustrate is that debate and commentary today is all about winning rather than searching for the truth and while I am not accusing you have trying to beat me I am suggesting that the way you responded conforms to the norms of the debate style I have been outlining.

Then please do tell why you think that the USSR, Mao-era China, Pol Pot and others still had mostly capitalistic systems. By and large, they had the most non-capitalistic systems the modern world has seen.

The Soviet Union was integrated into the current world economic system up to a point (though somewhat based on the older nationalistic, internalised, autarkic economies, I admit) However, there was clear social stratification, there was competition, there were business targets - which as always ended in corruption and attempts to defeat the target through foul means (broken goods, half-finished products and so on ie a big decline in quality) and there was conflict and a drive to be the strongest nation on the planet. There are a lot of similiarities between the actual systems (from a wider perspective), though you are totally right that within the nitty gritty there are vast differences in the running of the systems. I still haven't fully explained this, but I'm off to work in a moment so am keeping this fairy short.

To go on to your point about failed command/state economies, I have to partially agree with you only (I am against the systems in the country though the ideal of cooperation and human progress appeals to me). Yes, many of them have 'failed' However, I think there are a few circumstances that need illuminating: Cuba has been subject to an economic blockade, Venezuela has been assaulted a number of times by American intervention and coup attempts - including the classic one in 2004 (I think) when the elites staged a planned kidnapping by making fraudulent claims about the Chavez government. We could similarly list the amount of failures of this version of capitalism couldn't we: 1929, 2009 global meltdowns, the massive difference in wealth between nations, the forcing of single crop economies on many nations, the ability of capital to influence governments and so on.

Then could you provide examples of where command economies have been astounding successes? My point was that they have had very limited if any successes, worldwide.

You can cite the issues of 1929 and 2009 as being failures of capitalism, but far less people have been negatively effected by such problems as opposed to the failures of countries which have embraced heavy doses of command-driven economic models. For example, few people died of starvation, poverty or war during the depression, or the 2009 crisis as a direct result of policies. Comparatively, millions have died from economic policies developed by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot's command-driven regimes. Holodomor would be a great example.

Furthermore, you could look at the wealth discrepency between capitalistic societies in Europe, Asia and America in comparison to that of socialistic countries as I have stated, and see that more economic freedom results in larger net benefits for society. For example, Hong Kong and China are comprised of the same kinds of people, but the average citizen in Hong Kong makes many multiples more income, which  translates to a better quality of life.

Anyway, I don't support either style of this system. It is based on scarcity and inequality and competition and I don't agree that competition between us HAS to be the thing that motivates humanity. There are other motivations.  I'm sure you've seen Maslow's hierarchy, for example.

It doesn't HAVE to be the thing that motivates us, yes. However, the fact is that the variation of humanity can really change with people's needs. Maslow's hierarchy doesn't work for every single person. That is what causes the fundemental issue with a society which treats everyone the same - a more command-driven perspective of socioeconomic needs.

 

Far less people have been negatively effected if you focus on some or individual countries. If you look at the entire planet you can argue that the global world system (which is what I am talking about - and includes state capitalist nations) you will see that the system as it is has unbelievable inequalities, encourages war and violence, empire building (economic based these days). It's not the depression or recession that is the real problem it is the systematic inequalities that is a result of how it all hangs together. For example, American Foreign Policy in Vietnam. In an attempt to 'protect' the Vietnamese they bombed it to smithereens. What they were trying to do was keep it within the global economic system (thinking of the strategic need to support Japan and its limited resources) and thus, as a result of global organisation, the Vietnamese (and the American soldiers and their families) suffered. This is what I am getting at. The Soviet Union likewise tried to maintain its own rather more autarkic system (seeing as it couldn't compete with the American economy) and people in Poland, Afghanistan, Hungary and elsewhere suffered.

Please don't think I am defending state capitalism or command economies because I am not. I was really trying to point out that the Soviet System (of autarkic empire) and nationalistic, independent development (Vietnam, Cuba) are still based on very similar hierarchical structures, competition, scarcity and so on to the globalised system (once dominated by the US, but now by G20 types nations). I don't think command economies will ever 'work' but I also don't think the system we currently have 'works' either. Clearly in some ways globalised economic linkage has helped us (western nations used to be at each other's throats but are no longer shooting each other), but in other ways (ways mentioned above) they have not.

Freedom is a good thing, but I don't think that humanity is truly free within a corporate capitalist organisation where scarcity and competition rules the roost.

Finally, what I meant in the last line was that all humans can move beyond needing to compete to be motivated.

Done for now.