Ideas: Capitalism, its decay, and fascism

[Edric O]

That's probably the biggest problem with your philosophy right here: you can argue all you want that socialism is better from an ethical point of view, but building infrastructure from scrap just isn't possible without foreign capital, and if you want to get it you're expected to abide by the rules of the game.

Actually, building infrastructure from scrap without foreign capital is precisely what Britain, France, Germany, the United States and others did during the 19th century, and also what Japan, the Soviet Union and others did during the 20th century. Of course it's possible.

In fact - strangely enough - most of the countries that originally built up their infrastructure and industrialized without foreign capital are the leading economic powers today.

And history has shown that once a country has gotten to the point where it has a substantial middle class, there's little enthusiasm for a socialist overhaul.

Yes, but global capitalism is working hard to eliminate the middle class in those few countries where it exists.

[Tatar Khan]

Actually, building infrastructure from scrap without foreign capital is precisely what Britain, France, Germany, the United States and others did during the 19th century, and also what Japan, the Soviet Union and others did during the 20th century. Of course it's possible.

In fact - strangely enough - most of the countries that originally built up their infrastructure and industrialized without foreign capital are the leading economic powers today.

Yes, but global capitalism is working hard to eliminate the middle class in those few countries where it exists.

Yes they did build up without the foreign capital in the first place but that was in 19th century and beginning of 20th century. Back than technology was not leaping as it does today and catching up was not that hard. Especially for Britain, France and US who did not have to catch up at all to anyone, they were the first. Soviet Union build up its infrastructure through the remarkable power of peoples will and Stalin's drive.

Would it industrialize faster if it had more modern machinery? I think it would have. That machinery could have been acquired only through money coming from foreign investors.

Japan after WWII rebuilt only with the help of US foreign aid. It needed that money to catch up to  the rest of the developed world.

South Korea also used UN and US money to help it rise to where it is.

Singapore also actively encouraged foreign investment into it to start itself going.

When you nationalize you scare everybody off. IMF, World Bank, foreign governments. The credit rating falls and so who would give you the money (foreign aid or foreign investment) if the countries know that they will get to benefit back for it.

And yes the Four Tigers and Japan all use the socialistic approach, which I believe is right to drive their economies to the point they are at right now. They directed the money to the industries they believed to be successful and turned out to be so.

But part of the reason why the Africa is doing so bad even though it looks perfect (big open lands for pastures and grains) for agricultural industry is the socialistic programs that aid agricultural sector in industrialized nations. Thus closing off the market for African antions and often bombarding it with product that sold at dumping prices. These import restrictions, domestic price supports, export subsidies are all opposed by capitalism and its supporters, yet the governments of industrialized nations keep them. B/c the moment they try to do anything against them all the socialist groups will side with the farmers, with message that they feed the country + etc.

But the truth is that these programs tend to intensify agricultural production in countries with no comparative advantage in such production. To keep up their production these countries rely on chemicals. Relocation of these production from the densely populated industrial nations to more relatively lightly populated poorer countries would help all of us out, by giving those countries industry and markets and us lower prices on our food.

[Egeides]

Relocation of these production from the densely populated industrial nations to more relatively lightly populated poorer countries would help all of us out, by giving those countries industry and markets and us lower prices on our food.

Like bananas for 39 cents and the like? It looks stuck in the low rentability part with little plus value. It looks okay in rhetoric but I have doubts once further.

[Anathema]

I said capitalism is keeping Africa poor' date=' not that capitalism caused Africa to be poor in the first place. It didn't.

It is a false dichotomy to claim that the only two choices for Africa were to be either left isolated from the rest of the world or to be conquered and subjugated.[/quote']

Well, theoretically we could have traded with them peacefully or gifted them with huge sacks of money and called it "development aid" but back then people weren't as humanitarian as we are now. European countries did horrorible stuff back then, but the people living now aren't worse off because of it, there simply wasn't any potential that "we" ruined.

As for "keeping it poor", a more accurate statement is "not helping it getting any richer".

Besides, just about every country in the world exists in part because it did brutal stuff in the past. Is everybody forced to pay reparations for the stuff they did? Then a good deal of eastern European countries and even Iraq should get some from Mongolia, every nation on the Balkans should get some from Turkey, et cetera.

We should fight all of Africa's problems (poverty, aids, ethnic strife) out of good will and not out of supposed guilt.

Having said that' date=' it is of course true that capitalism is effective at industrializing countries, and with industrialization comes economic growth. Yes, capitalism can, and often does, raise living standards. That is not in dispute. What I am saying that there are better, faster, and more equitable ways to raise living standards.[/quote']

I don't see how an alternative system could be as successfull (let alone, better) except possibly by mimicing capitalism to create efficiency incentives- such as making all industries collectively owned, but operating autonomously.

An affluent lifestyle by Indian standards is not quite the same as an affluent lifestyle by Western standards.

Actually I got that from a documentary that told about several IT'ers' date=' their jobs earned them enough to live in large houses and buy pretty much anything - that comes from India itself. Of course they wouldn't be able to import a BMW or a Mercedes because of the exchange rates. India is still a developing country in many ways, don't expect miracles overnight.[/color']

If by "colonialism" you mean "direct political control' date='" then yes, it's over. But just because a country became politically independent, that does not mean that its economy will suddenly change overnight, that it will suddenly acquire new export markets and that new domestic industries will spring up like mushrooms all by themselves. In most cases, former colonies remained in the same dependent economic relationships that they had prior to independence.

Economic forces are keeping those countries poor, not any conspiracy.[/quote']

If these countries isolated themselves (or at least from capitalist countries), would they do any better at building up? Many former colonies were successful because they embraced capitalism to a degree and played by "the rules".

Even if you do not go out and capture slaves yourself' date=' buying slaves and exploiting them is still evil.[/quote']

Was it evil back then? Certainly. But does it mean that we should pay reparations to present African countries? I don't think so. The guilt of their ancestors is as big as ours anyway.

I agree with you. However' date=' in order to put this principle into practice, one would have to abolish most forms of inheritance. I, for one, do indeed support the creation of a global economic system that reduces inheritance to a minimum. Do you?[/quote']

That's an interesting question. It's difficult, but I'm inclined to support heavy taxes on inheritance for just that reason. But while I support the principle of equality of opportunity, I think abolishing it right away might be to drastic.

Western conspiracy? Not at all - it is not just the West that benefits from China's position. The Chinese ruling class benefits as well. It is important to realize that' date=' in economic relations, there is no such thing as national interest. Not any more. Different classes within a nation have always had different interests - what is good for the dictator is not good for the worker, and vice versa. Now, thanks to globalization, the interests of each class are becoming more and more globalized. Rulers and businessmen across the world have increasingly common interests. What is good for Chinese tycoons tends to be good for American ones as well. Likewise, workers across the world have increasingly common interests.[/quote']

It's true that the majority of Chinese don't benefit much from the growing economy. However as the elite seeks class dealignment to prevent rebellion of an unhappy population that knows they're being screwed over they'll have to share more and more of that wealth to defuse such dangers, leading to a "contented majority". This is why Lenin never implemented true democracy, because he knew at some point the people would become happy with what they had and wouldn't be interested in developing socialism further.

Yes' date=' but global capitalism is working hard to eliminate the middle class in those few countries where it exists.[/quote']

Such as where?