Washington post - The end of american capitalism?

[Urwumpe]

There was as far as I remember, only one really successful phase in a socialist country - and that was in the USSR right after the death of Stalin and before Brezhnev returned to Stalinism.

 

[Moonwalker]

Communism on the whole only works in theory.

 

[pattersoncr]

They use money only to buy land.
But internally they do not have a currency.

Also not true.
Amongst thier own, Amish usually barter. While not making use of currancy, that hardly counts as communial property.
The Amish do pleanty of business with the "English" for more things than just land.

 

[mrspacely]

things dont happen so accidentally like people blindly tell themselves. do you think this 'system' is failing because no one saw it coming? there are plenty of powerful people in a state of bliss right now.

heres a thought: maybe there is an entity that leads ALL systems. an entity that rules russia, the us, europe etc. that would make things easier to understand i think.

 

[willy88]

heres a thought: maybe there is an entity that leads ALL systems. an entity that rules russia, the us, europe etc. that would make things easier to understand i think.

*Puts on tinfoil hat*

The Illuminati? It is a well-known fact known by all politicians and some citizens that all Terran governments are controlled by the Illuminati, but almost no one knows that the Illuminati is in fact a front for the reptilians. I, for one, welcome Our Benefactors and the opportunities that they have given us as a species.

 

[Scarecrow]

This sort of thing has happened before, and the US economy hasn't fallen in on itself beyond repair yet. Every US economic crisis I can think of has been caused, at least in part, by speculation on one thing or another leading to an overextension of credit, causing a bubble to form and burst.

Sometimes it's big, sometimes it's small, but historically, we've always bounced back, and I don't see any reason why we won't do so again. And the next time, and the time after that. Everyone just tries to make everything a bigger deal than it really is. If I remember correctly, there was speculation about the end of the democratic party a couple of years ago (it even made the cover of U.S. News). We can all see what became of that.

Some people will come out rather poorly, but eventually, the United States will make a full recovery.

 

[Hielor]

heres a thought: maybe there is an entity that leads ALL systems. an entity that rules russia, the us, europe etc. that would make things easier to understand i think.

Dude, if there's a single entity that runs all governments, it must be really bad at it, because let's face it: historically, all governments fail in the long run.

And of course it would "make it easier to understand." Assuming that there's a mystical energy Force that controls your destiny takes the responsibility out of your hands so you don't have to deal with it anymore.

That's not going to *solve* any problems. In fact, people not taking responsibility for their actions (or expenditures) is what CAUSED the problem that we're currently in.

 

[Jarvitä]

Out of curiousity, how can you claim that communism works better than democracy when the american system has worked nearly unchanged for over 200 years? I challenge you to present a communist system that has worked that well for that long.

Not a single government has ever claimed to be communist. I think, given more time to develop and less external pressure (mainly from the USA for no other reason than "It's those God-damn reds!"), some of the socialist countries created after the image of the USSR after WWII yet remaining outside of it's influence would have emerged from the socialist transition period into a truly communist society. The USSR ruined it with Stalinism, but socialist countries that resisted the Soviet influence (such as the PRC, SFRY and ČSR until the Prague spring) have actually upheld the socialist principles without delving too much into totalitarianism. However, all of them succombed to the external and internal pressure to "modernize" with the fall of the USSR. I don't see how you can claim communism "doesn't work", when there never was a communist state. You can't prove a negative.

 

[Ghostrider]

Well, I can't prove Connor MacLeod-type immortals do not exist, either... But I'm pretty sure I'm not going to ever see one outside of movies and TV!
This crisis, if anything, will not spell the end of real capitalism because we haven't seen much of it in the latest decades, but hopefully it will cause the downfall of the bastardized version we've seen so far.
In a truly capitalist environment, there's real competition and the little guy can bring down the big guy if he's got the superior product. In real capitalism, if I can build an antigravity engine that removes the need for fuels, I can sell it out of my garage, make zillions and draw the oil companies into the gutter. In the world we have now, the big oil companies will run me into the ground with every legal trick at their disposal, and the governments will help them to "protect their investments". Yes, it happens, especially with telcos.
The last time I've seen real capitalism in action was with the Home Computer Revolution in the late '70s to the late '80s: some people make a cheap CPU (Mostek) some guys in a garage make up the Apple ][, it caters to a niche market, it sells, some other people write VisiCalc, it sells and it benefits a lot of people because it allows every small business to have an effective in-house financial analysis feature. The early internet business boom was also an example.
Do you think that in the current environment it would have been possible? No. IBM, ITT and some other big firms would have taken the whole pie for themselves and destroyed every competitor. There would not be any Apple or Microsoft (ironically, they behave much to the same effect as the old giants would have). The internet would have been nipped in the bud and regulated from day one to benefit a handful of competitors.

 

[JamesG]

I don't see how you can claim communism "doesn't work", when there never was a communist state. You can't prove a negative.

That's because it was a completely unrealistic and unworkable system. It started to break down shortly after being implemented. The only reason that it perpetuated in the Russian Empire and spread was because it has an appealing sales pitch to the disenfranchised. All it did was rearrange the chairs and allowed a new set of elites to arise to gain and horde power for themselves.

Marx was a fool who didn't understand anything about human nature. His musings were a reaction to the dislocations and excesses of the early capitalist/industrial age, not a mature social-economic system. It took nearly a century and billions of people living and dying in misery for that experiment to be proven negative. I think that is pretty conclusive.

For all of its warts and imperfections, democracy and capitalism are the best concept humans have devised yet "IF" you consider personal freedom and self-determination on one hand, and the efficient way to grow resources and an economy to be key facets of a society.

 

[jedidia]

Democracy, or rather, a representative democracy, has proven that it works better than communism.

Well, it would be an interesting Idea to try a not-representative democracy for a change... I like Heinleins weird ideas he came up with in "the Moon is a harsh mistress".

Anyways, I really like the swiss sistem, where not only the legislative, but also the executive is divided into several people from different parties. It's a bit slower yet, but generally you don't get that much polarisation (at least this used to be the case. The climate in swiss politics tok a disturbing turn lately).

 

[Eagle]

Ancient Athens was pretty close to a direct democracy. It worked well for a few generations.

The Roman Republic lasted several thousand years. 450 years.

On the main topic.

This is not the end of capitalism, its just the start of a pro-regulation cycle. In a decade or so the deregulation calls will happen again and the cycle will repeat.

 

[Andy44]

The Roman Republic lasted several thousand years.

No, the Roman Empire lasted over a thousand years, after it killed the Republic, which only lasted a few hundred.

 

[fort]

What would be we without the help of the things which do not exist ? Paul Valery

( Que serions-nous sans l'aide des choses qui n'existent pas )

 

[SiberianTiger]

Not a single government has ever claimed to be communist. I think, given more time to develop and less external pressure (mainly from the USA for no other reason than "It's those God-damn reds!"), some of the socialist countries created after the image of the USSR after WWII yet remaining outside of it's influence would have emerged from the socialist transition period into a truly communist society. The USSR ruined it with Stalinism, but socialist countries that resisted the Soviet influence (such as the PRC, SFRY and ČSR until the Prague spring) have actually upheld the socialist principles without delving too much into totalitarianism. However, all of them succombed to the external and internal pressure to "modernize" with the fall of the USSR.

That's a revelation. I never ever heard before an Eastern European complaint about USSR not being Communist enough! :blink:


-----Posted Added-----

There was as far as I remember, only one really successful phase in a socialist country - and that was in the USSR right after the death of Stalin and before Brezhnev returned to Stalinism.

Maybe yes, it was the time when most of the USSR's population truly believed in the lure of Communism. But Khruschev didn't have the oil pipe back then, so there just was not enough material basis for building a successful transition economy. And btw, everything they could save on cutting the tank armadas would go to sustaining the nuclear arms race (the Lunar race came the second).

 

[Urwumpe]

Maybe yes, it was the time when most of the USSR's population truly believed in the lure of Communism. But Khruschev didn't have the oil pipe back then, so there just was not enough material basis for building a successful transition economy. And btw, everything they could save on cutting the tank armadas would go to sustaining the nuclear arms race (the Lunar race came the second).

Yes, but that was not only that - the figures of the economy had also been really growing in these years. So, it seems Khrushchev's government really found the right mixture between investing into the economy and take part inside the arms race. I don't know what would have happened if the soviet union kept his economic politics active... if I remember, in his time also fell most innovation inside the soviet union.