Capitalism vs Socialism

antrobus

N1AK wrote: »

...Personally I think communism vs capitalism has almost nothing to do with it. Somalia, and east Africa generally, are a product of the end of colonial rule and the cold war powers interference.

I agree. Communism vs capitalism has nothing to do with Somalia's current predicament.

Odd therefore, that you should even mention it, given the subject of this thread.:rotfl:

Graham_Devon

antrobus wrote: »

Yes, but it is not possible to have any kind of 'socialism' in the North Korean, or Cuban, Soviet, whatever sense, without having a dicatatorship. The state's monopoly of economic activity can only be achieved by denying everyone else the freedom to engage in economic activity, which demands dictatorship.

Indeed.

And that is why we can't really use North Korea as an example of Socialism. Even you have had to wrap the word in quotation marks.

The North Korean model doesn't really fit any other model. It's first and foremost a strict and fierce dictatorship. The financial model of the country is based on the outcomes of that dictatorship. If the dictatorship change something, the financial model changes with it.

Rather than suggesting "look what happens when you have socialism", we should be saying "look what happens when you have a dictatorship which has cut it's country off from the world and will shoot people in cold blood should they watch an American film".

It's really nothing to do with Socialism, it's just that the financial model (stemming from the dictatorship) probably links most easily with Socialism.

But that's like saying all prisons are brutal and the entire prison model needs changing... using Vladimir Prison in Russia as your reference point. or in other words, using extremes just clouds the discussions, but means you can always "prove your point".

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Indeed.

And that is why we can't really use North Korea as an example of Socialism. Even you have had to wrap the word in quotation marks.
...

It and Cuba are the last surviving advoctes of the Bolshevik State Capitalist model. I believe that is what the OP meant by 'socialism', as in the OED defintion of a "system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange".

I believe that experience allows us now to conclude that state ownership and regulation of the means of production (a) does not work very well and (b) is incompatible with basic notions of human freedom.

Time to move on.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not sure if this is a fair comparison to be honest.

Surely the biggest issue for North Korea isn't socialism, but the fierce dictatorship that runs it?

The political aspect has taken the financial aspect (socialism) to a completely different level. I don't think it's really fair to use it as any type of yardstick.

As antrobus says, Socialism inevitably leads to dictatorship. Even Marx believed that Totalitarianism was an inevitable part of Socialism. It's possibly the only thing Marx and Hayek agree on.

Conrad

BBC4's 'India's Daughter' documentary on the fatal bus rape case had various Indian's saying women are being freed by capitalism. Without capitalism these women argue they would still be quietly enduring effective slavery without a voice or autonomy.


People often talk about French socialism but for me it's nothing like the kind of socialism your typical British socialist has in mind. The French are pragmatic for example and tend to support one another - the police buy French cars, the people support local bakers unlike the more selfish British that buy bread from the super market.
This French mutual support landscape allows a modicum of socialism to be enabled in a way probably not possible in Britain where the socialist left would decry buying British as something akin to little Englander bigotry.

antrobus

Conrad wrote: »

...... The French are pragmatic for example and tend to support one another - the police buy French cars, the people support local bakers unlike the more selfish British that buy bread from the super market.....

The French people support local bakers only when they're allowed to open.

French baker ordered to close shop one day a week
http://www.france24.com/en/20150211-france-baker-ordered-close-shop-one-day-week/

I'm not sure that 'pragmatism' is the word I would use to describe that sort of thing.:)

zagubov

antrobus wrote: »

It and Cuba are the last surviving advoctes of the Bolshevik State Capitalist model. I believe that is what the OP meant by 'socialism', as in the OED defintion of a "system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange".

I believe that experience allows us now to conclude that state ownership and regulation of the means of production (a) does not work very well and (b) is incompatible with basic notions of human freedom.

Time to move on.

They should have scrapped state ownership and five-year plans like Yugoslavia did in the 60s.

padington

zagubov wrote: »

They should have scrapped state ownership and five-year plans like Yugoslavia did in the 60s.

We do five year plans, they're called manefesto's.

Loughton_Monkey

antrobus wrote: »

The French people support local bakers only when they're allowed to open.

French baker ordered to close shop one day a week
http://www.france24.com/en/20150211-france-baker-ordered-close-shop-one-day-week/

I'm not sure that 'pragmatism' is the word I would use to describe that sort of thing.:)

You must remember that France is a 'Communist' country formally [since it is organised into communes]. Plus Allande makes Miliband look like Margaret Thatcher.

But my biggest surprise is that the baker appears to believe he must follow the rules. Most French simply don't bother.

So we can predict our plight should Miliband form a majority government, we can see him abolishing zero hour contracts, rigorously enforce (and strengthen) European law. Avoid any referendum or renegotiation on Europe, tax businesses a lot more, raise minimum wage abruptly, thereby getting unemployment up to 5 million or so.

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

As antrobus says, Socialism inevitably leads to dictatorship. Even Marx believed that Totalitarianism was an inevitable part of Socialism. It's possibly the only thing Marx and Hayek agree on.

And so they might. Jean-Francois Revel's "The Totalitarian Temptation" is worth a read. Some of the best political writing is by anti-communist socialists.

In the mid-80s I spent a miserable time having cancer tests in a hospital in S London while reading "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell. He's well worth a read.

The only redeeming feature of Stalinism AFAIK was that he spotted that Hitler was a far bigger thug really early, and that among his (Stalin's) endless weaknesses was that he couldn't convince Churchill that Hitler should be stopped before he started a war which could turn out to be a bit of a big one.:(