I agree. Using simply the rules of thumb of complexity theory, it is possible to prove that system such as capitalist economies of scale are volatile.
The problem we get is that folk are bought by the 'government can only create monopoly' dogma, failing to appreciate that the theory of the firm will always predict a dual sector economy: one with monopoly power, one with competition. It gets worse for labour though as those sectors will also split according to type of job, enabling greater exploitation and ensuring monopsonistic deadweight losses
The problem with capitalist devotion is that the populace is ignorant. He feels that such a system promises freedom. He loves his freedom. His freedom is illusory but that doesn't matter because he doesn't know it. It should come as no surprise that the common man doesn't understand economic theory or what economic system is most advantageous and makes for his well being.
That's not my experience. Some of the best economic debates I've had has been down the pub. You underestimate people's comprehension (which often means little because of a lack of power/choice)
Perhaps so. I live in the US. Capitalist devotion borders on fanaticism throughout all economic classes, here. The progressives are advocates of the welfare state. However, the welfare state is simply a horrid cross breeding of capitalist market principles and some vague socialist notions. Its a capitalist system, welfare or not.
Perhaps there is some nationalist fever within that? There's nothing like nationalism when it comes to avoiding the debate and concerns over improvement. The welfare state is certainly a key aspect of capitalism. I always find it amusing that its confused with socialism, given its origins (at least here) is focused on imperialist competition
Agreed. Here, socialism and welfare are quite literally equated. Its fairly obnoxious to an actual socialist. When people don't even seem to know what socialism is, it can be difficult to argue for it.
Its always been a strange one to me as I know the US welfare system is- relatively speaking- particularly ungenerous. Despite that, the pro-capitalist type will often use it as an explanation for the lack of social mobility (blaming socialism for just a rather inequitable version of the capitalist paradigm)
Exactly. It is not even a very extensive or generous welfare program. The national psychology that goes into all of this is most unsettling. People pass of their ignorance as educated critique. Educated critique is written off as unpatriotic or radical and extremist. I love my country. That is why I advocate socialism. People seem unable to realize that a nation is about the conglomeration of citizens not about some phony idea of "national principles"
Socialists tend to move the goal posts. When you point out the failures of socialism, currently in Europe and countries of the former Soviet Union...they'll remark...well that's not "real" socialism. Capitalism has it's flaws, but it has sustained far more success...long-term success than socialism ever has. The Dutch came up with the idea in the 15th Century...while Socialism's roots stem from Karl Marx in the 19th Century...with his infamous "Das Kapital." The Marxist/Leninist model...failed. The European Socialist model is failing...just take a look at Greece, Portugal and Italy if you think it's a success. Capitalism is still alive and well...while far from perfect, it works.
Nope. It reflects their ability to understand socialist political economy. You'll find that its the pro-capitalist that tends to be more 'fluid' with their understanding. We see that, for example, with monopoly power. Given its inconvenience to the right wing 'American libertarianism' approach, it is re-translated as 'government monopoly. There is no understanding of the firm and the consequences for economic outcome. Depends on your criteria. It certainly succeeded in industrialising the country. This is a fallacy. Europe is either social democratic or liberal democratic. Any 'failures' is the result of an economic integration that was too focused on political needs (be it a right winger trying to hold on to European power, or a left winger thinking integration would offer a more righteous power to control the excesses of US power) So you don't mind the mass unemployment and the class attack on individualism?
Case in point... Moving the goal posts....denying that the majority of EU nations facing bankruptcy...are modeled on Socialist doctrine of high taxation and government ownership. Mass unemployment? Around 8% in U.S.... meanwhile in Europe...the EU-27 averages 10.1%
No, just correct use of political economy. And they are all capitalist nations. Unemployment serves a key purpose in capitalism: a discipline device of the workers
They aren't modeled on socialist doctrine. They have free market enterprise and the enterprise is privately owned. Thus, they are not socialist models. Furthermore, as Reiver said, Marxist-Leninism made Russia into a modern, industrial powerhouse. It never would have been so, for any period of time, without those reforms.
61,911,000 Murdered: in The Soviet Gulag State That's progress alright. Keep moving the goalposts... Stalin would be proud of you comrades I'm sure... next thing you know, you'll both argue Cuba is a capitalist nation also...
The incompatibility of Stalinism with socialism is obvious. Note also that its consistent with the authoritarian personality; a right wing deficiency.
No one is advocating Stalinism. Don't poison the well. You are the one moving the goalposts. Your argument was successfully dispatched and so you sought to shift the grounds. I thought we were talking about economics, now you are talking about gulags. Is it possible that YOU are the one who is not able to defend YOUR position?
And of course, both sectors are crosscutting. It is true that governments are not the only entities that can create monopolies, although in order for the contemporary state to exist, it must maintain a monopoly upon the legitimate use of force. Being that the state upholds a justified exercise of force, we often discount that force can be illegitimate. However, because of enamored obsession with state force, the latter never gets the attention it deserves.
The "We're better than Stalinism" comment is way too popular, particularly as those who use it are often the same authoritarian personality types that deliver such viciousness as Stalinism. In he mean time the inefficiencies of capitalism are ignored: from economic rents created through labour market discrimination to the agency costs associated with monopoly power.
The arguments that "socialism has been tried before" make no sense because: 1) Socialism is supposed to be a superior economic paradigm so it cannot really exist or thrive under conditions of scarcity 2) Scarcity can not realistically be overcome on only a national scale in an industrialized society 3) This means that any superior system (socialism) must be international But how would socialism develop simultaneously on an international scale? The Marxist concept involves establishing a new "worker's state" or "dictatorship of the proletariat", in which the working class as a whole runs a dictatorship over the newly dispossessed bourgeoisie (capitalists) and much of the petty bourgeoisie (small capitalists, ie small business owners). The economic system accompanying the workers state is actually supposed to be a form of state capitalism run in the interests of the workers. Once workers have taken control in most countries and established these workers states the idea is to gradually socialize the nationalized enterprises of the workers states and introduce economic planning, eventually establishing communism and the abolition of the state. I hope this makes it clear that the idea of the Soviet Union ever being "socialist" completely goes against Marxist theory.
I don't agree, particularly as the main advantage of socialism is the increase in productivity (alleviating conditions of scarcity) Sounds like you've adopted a very specific form of Marxist theory and forgot the vibrancy in socialist political economy.
Because it produces so much less unemployment and economic crisis than all the other economic systems
One only needs to compare the productivity of the capitalist nations, and compare it to the productivity of ANY other nations, to see that increased productivity is the main advantage of capitalism and the lack of it the main disadvantage of socialism. But Im sure when you refer to "socialism", you speak of a socialism, never before attained and instead something you have imagined within your own mind.
