Does there exist any economy sufficiently detatched to not enter recession

[Sneakgab]

Well, any economy sufficiently detached from capitalism and/or the world economy AND will this have a significant (sufficient?) effect on the struggles of socialism and communism. The space for the subject was simply not sufficient.

Like usual, my imagination is insufficient to come up with anything better than this. Taking that into consideration, please feel free to change the topic as required. I guess the idea is that from this a more interesting topic might come to mind.

Also, I am simply curious as to the answer; my information is insufficient to determine this myself and my laziness prevents me from acquiring much information.

One might imagine Cuba would be sufficiently detached. Supposedly their government is communist and considering the amount of trade embargoes already in place it would seem that a reduction in trade would have less of an effect on them.

With luck (well, some would see it that way), the relatively good fortunes of Cuba (placed not so far from the highly capitalist USA, thus perhaps creating a contrastive effect) this might encourage people to seriously visit the idea of communism as opposed to the usual ''communism/socialism is bad and dictatorial'' view generated by the stigmatism upon communism/sociaism by stalinism (adding to that is the fact that in the last bout  of capitalism vs ''communism'' one side was represented by the most powerful country in the world while the other was represented by one emerging from fuedalism and bearing the brunt of world wars).

Then again, in a few respects the difference is not so great if we see that Cuba is hardly reputed to be an economic powerhouse and that while mismanagement and wasteful wars weakened the USA they still remained powerful before the recession (we must note that the recession is perhaps a common factor).

Saying all that, I do realize I have not examined any statistics. Is the weakening of the USA more significant than I wildly guess? Will the recession be harsher. Are these questions even useful, considering how little I know of Cuba and it's economic situation?

To create a difference from this factor from the last recession which occurred during the period of communism in Russia, it is of course necessary that there be a difference in the relative economic strength difference between these two country between the two times periods. Certainly Russia employed methods that perhaps Cuba probably won't and/or won't have available to it... but perhaps communism may gain a stronger representative perhaps through revolutionary change in countries with more promising economies? Mexico and Nigeria perhaps show promise respectively due to the existing support for socialism and the resources held (though oil has greatly devalued... still there may be more)

One can not help but note that the mismanagement and anti-socialistic policies adopted by the American government and others can now only help but foster anti-capitalistic discontent, resentment and action.

One serious threat though is that this additional energy from the provided fuel is simply re-diverted to useless effort and ''forcing'' governments into changes that together or otherwise are ultimately fruitless for the working class thus giving false satisfaction and temporarily subduing those who seek social justice (forgive my use of the term as it is presumptious  considering not all consider moves away from capitalism as social justice, but in the end, you know what I mean right?).

It has been said that such strategies (along with the perhaps more significant ''false smiling friend with his false working class uplifting changes'' strategy) will be able to set back the pursuit of social justice by 2 or more decades. Essentially, it will be said: Oh, capitalism isn't the problem... it's racism, or war, or just the last government in general (perhaps ''scapegoat'' tactics of the past bear some minor resemblance to this). Then those will be dealt with and people will think that it is sufficient until they notice years later that they are still suffering and so is everbody else.

Now, one might think that people would notice that their lot in life still generally isn't improving. I too, would probably suspect this and therefore not even bring up much of what I have said... were it not for the history of South Africa.

After apartheid was removed, the lots of the poorest and the working class still did not improve. A few Africans were elevated to the position of the bourgeoisie to enjoy exploiting those they lived amongst (knowing their pain, they still exploit? But many rich capitalist consider themselves to causing no evil so...).

(edit: May I add that last I heard our Gini co-efficient was at a shocking 60% [or was it 65%]. Supposedly a Gini co-efficient of anything above 40 is an indicator of destabilization. Well, apparently not of action though, as efforts towards socialism are practically unheard of here.)

I guess people can just stand around for a few years thinking that their is necessary delay between cause and effect. Not too unreasonable perhaps. I know in SA not long ago we had a bit of a bout of xenophobia. Not sure if the ones carrying out the acts were convinced that immigrant were the problem or if they just felt like feeling xenophobic as they also attacked ethnic groups comprised mostly of citizen though the majority of the attacks were carried out on immigrants so...[too often used?:D]).

Well, you all just know I felt like guiltessly posting pages upon pages of convoluted text that I am afraid you will be temporarily saved from that pleasure by my approaching bed time.

Till then, I hope that my rantings at least somehow inspire some interesting conversation and debate (take note that I rather converse than debate really, though this case may offer an exception)

And yeah, I do know I'm kind of ending abruptly without actually finishing my case, but I really should be getting to sleep. ;D...

One last note: I fully intend to pursue information MYSELF tomorrow (or eventually at least) with which to answer my own questions instead of simply imposing on others. I swear :D

[Sneakgab]

Well, this is off-topic but since a new thread would have been out of order: Can of you come up with possible strategies to be employed by socialist movements to encourage fighting amongst the bourgeois? Their is no reason they would avoid screwing each other for profits if possible.

Of course, much conflict may arise amongst the super rich who have power anyway.

Okay, I really am going to sleep this time...

[Edric O]

There are some countries that are detached enough from capitalism and/or the world economy to avoid the effects of the worldwide recession. Cuba is a good example, like you mentioned (though it is not communist or socialist, it is of course closer to socialism than the vast majority of other countries).

But there are other examples too. North Korea comes to mind, being the most isolationist country in the world, and probably the only economy to have achieved complete autarky. Unfortunately, North Korea isn't anything remotely like a good example for anyone. Then there are a number of countries that are simply not advanced enough to be affected by the global recession - like Bhutan, for instance, or some other small, mostly-agricultural countries. But they're not good examples either.

The problem is that whenever people think of "examples" of any kind, they think of developed Western countries. And all developed Western countries are part of the global capitalist system, and all of them will be hit by the global recession.

But at least the recession could have the effect of causing people across the world to stop looking at the West as an example to be copied, and it could cause people in the West to think more seriously about different economic systems - such as socialism and communism. Already it seems that sales of Karl Marx's books have grown spectacularly in Germany and elsewhere, and many communist books are becoming very popular in, of all places, Japan.

I think it's inevitable that this recession, like all recessions, will cause people to start thinking about changes and alternatives to the status quo. As for what kinds of changes and alternatives will become popular - well, that remains to be seen. Socialists should make an effort to ensure that socialism, and not something else, comes to be seen as the main alternative to the status quo. After all, remember the 1930s: That was also a time of global recession, but fascism emerged out of it as the main alternative to the status quo. We must not let that happen again.

[SandChigger]

Cuba and North Korea. <i>O Brave New World!</i> Where do I sign up? :D

Yes, they have their socialist and communist parties here in Japan. The latter especially are always good for a chuckle.

Where did you obtain your information on book sales over here?

[Edric O]

None other than the Daily Telegraph, affectionately known as the "Daily Torygraph" for its usual pro-conservative bias in the UK.

The BBC also had an article recently about the sudden surge in popularity of Das Kapital in Germany.

So yes, this is good news. Of course, we don't have an example of a socialist or communist country to showcase to the world - but then again, no political ideology or party can give you an example of a country where all its ideas have been put into practice.

[Edric O]

Also, apparently, a manga version of Das Kapital was just released in Japan... erm, I'm not entirely sure how a book on economic theory can be put into narrative form and made into a comic book, but in any case, this is more good news.

[SandChigger]

Und you alvays belief <b>eferytink</b> you reat, Komrade?

Some young people here may be having it rough now, but give 'em a little taste of Uncle Joe and they'll change their tune, just you wait and see.

I'm so glad I'm not young. I'll get to exploit and pillage for another decade or two and then piss off.

Have fun with the mess afterwards. 8)

[exatreide]

Bhutan, and to a lesser extend Nepal.

When you have a nation that has a gross national happiness product...

You are pretty isolated.

[Sneakgab]

There is also the ''the Crab Canning Ship''. It has reportedly been (was?) on the nation's best seller with list for a while with it's sales being increased about 101.4 times over (5000 to 507,000). Mentioning the factor might not have much meaning but I thought the scale of it might amuse some. Das Kapital I think has also been popular.

Of course, I don't really have specifics. I'm finding it very difficult to find sales statistics. I think that the number of sales for the year would be the best thing to look at to guage the current popularity. If you look at best sales in total then you will be getting more a sign  of general popularity over the decades.

Along with the manga (of the ''The Crab Canning Ship'' novel) their is apparently also a plan of a remake of the original move based on the novel in the works.

I would say that directors, publishers, authors,e.t.c at least seem to think that their is a good business opportunity here.

As for the sources reporting the apparent popularity of these titles in their various forms, they are many. Reuters, ABC,hollywoodreporter (for the movie), BBC and many others.

''Und you alvays belief eferytink you reat, Komrade?''

If that was directed to news of the popularity of the novel (which I don't think it was since Edrico already provided his source but just in case) then there are many sources.

I guess I'm just asking what that question was directed at since it probably wasn't directed at reports about the novels. ???

''That was also a time of global recession, but fascism emerged out of it as the main alternative to the status quo. We must not let that happen again.''

Just another thing to add to the thread of re-direction. It may well be that fascism was selected because of what people THOUGHT there problems were. In Germany, one example of what they perhaps thought some of the problem was was semitism... hence putting in power an anti-semetic government. Of course, there were many other things and this is actually just a possibly relatively minor factor to serve as an example.

[Sneakgab]

(edit:whoops, I was originally considering modifying my earlier post [even though the topic of these two posts is quite different] instead of making a new post but forgot and posted once more instead. My apologies for the double post)

Sand chigger, it took a hell of a long time for even the people who really WERE under the rule of Uncle Joe himself to stop supporting him and to put an end to his style of rule. As a matter of fact, his style of government only came to an end when he did, if I recall correctly (which I very well might not). Although, it seems that such talk is not even necessary from your perspective as you don't seem to think there is any danger of significant movement towards socialism.

Also, the communism that most have in mind here is very different to Stalin's dictatorial stalinism/communism. For one thing this communism could be upheld purely by democratic means. This is one huge difference that could affect the time that a communist government stays in power.

Even then, you may not be speaking of a communist government when you refer to your ''taste'' but simply of changes in policy and law to that effect.

At the end of all that you must also remember that the topic is not just about communism but also socialism.

The economic boom and the re-enforcement of anti-socialist and pro-capitalist attitudes inspired by has come to make some think of communism as an outlandish notion and a ridiculously unlikely possibility (an impossibility even). It is the feeling of some that they can can compare the talk of the advent of communism to the advent of armageddon or meeting other intelligent life forms.

However, times do change. I must admit though, that things have been the way they have (or, changing to be FURTHER from a the event of a communist government) for a VERY long time.

Well, you may very well be right in you're feelings that the idea of a great change in the direction of communsim or socialism is a joke. As I have said I have hardly begun collecting information to assess how much strength communism and socialism will gain in the coming months.

However, perhaps it would at least be correct to say that you are dismissing the forces of communism and socialism a little TOO easily here?

Of course, I do recognize that perhaps you're feelings regarding change towards communsim may ONLY be in regard to Japan. Still, what I have said (about the economic boom for example) does apply to that country as well and the situation in Japan is not so different from the general situation of most capitalist countries in the world. Still, much of this post may be moot and if that is the case I apologize.

By the way, what numbers and level of activity would be sufficient for a protest to be marked a significant indicator of unrest and unpopularity? How many thousands would it need to involve? Remember that only the most displeased bother to protest. Even amongst the extremely displeased, many of those will not participate because they have a distaste for rowdy behavior and/or have important things to do.

[Edric O]

SandChigger, I hereby officially award you the First Annual Dust Scout Prize for Cynicism! ;D

[SandChigger]

If I knew what a "Dust Scout" is, that might mean something to me.

???

Sneakgab, <i>gokurou-sama</i> for taking the time to type all that. I might come back and read it later.

Read some of <i>Kanikousen</i> in a J-Lit class. Nothing to jump up and down about, that I remember.

The Japanese publish and read an amazing amount of books, magazines, etc. They publish and read a lot of shit, too. <i>Omnia cum grano salis.</i>

[Sneakgab]

''Sneakgab, gokurou-sama for taking the time to type all that. I might come back and read it later.''

Why thank you Sandchigger. From the ''gokurou-sama'' I will assume that that wasn't a sarcastic comment on the lines of: Geez, thanks for making me read all that Sneakgab  >:(, and really was a thank you.

;D

''I might come back and read it later''

I myself am the type to do just that or worse, be too lazy to finish off something even when it is perfectly interesting. Hence, my appreciation. :)

''Read some of Kanikousen in a J-Lit class. Nothing to jump up and down about, that I remember''

Apparently, it was(is) also a presumably compulsory high-school textbook. Of course, that doesn't mean any one was paying attention when reading it:D.

''The Japanese publish and read an amazing amount of books, magazines, etc. They publish and read a lot of shit, too.''

Well, if we count manga as books then the high numbers are to be expected. You probably don't though.

Well, I've met many people who read a lot of $h!t. The thing about what there is to learn from many books (mostly applies to non-textbooks of course) is that most of it leaves me saying at the end: I already knew all that. It is difficult to find somebody to point you in the right direction because most reviewers aren't any good and even if you ask and talk to somebody in person they will probably not understand what you are looking for and probably will probably not know that how good a book is can depend on the circumstances. If you have read many books from a certain author, then despite of how good his books generally may be you may have become a tad bored of his style (for example).

Still, people read $h!t, seemingly not realizing that there are better uses of their time.

Of course, after all that, one occasionally finds a book that is excellent.

Anyhow, when you refer to the Japanese reading and publishing of $h!t, are you suggesting that ''kanikousen'' is among the excrement? That would seem a bit unfair if you have read but a fraction of it.

Also, remember that how good a book is is situational. For the young Japanese worker down on his luck who has been exploited (at least, according to communists and socialists) and never before thought that perhaps things should be different, then it is potentially an inspiring read that may encourage the worker to question how things are (usually a good thing right?) and eventually come to fight for and support his own ideals, whatever that may be, instead of just being another cog in a system.

However, I doubt that Karl Marx and more recent experts on communism would have much to learn from reading it.

We can even look at children's novels such as Sam the cat (or whatever it was called:D) and the like. To an adult they are $h!t but to a child they can even be important.

Now that it not to say that there aren't books which ARE STILL just plain $h!t for any reader, and they form the majority of reading material.

Whether that is even more true in Japan than elsewhere I don't know, but it can be said that most such similar mediums (Live action shows, movies, novels,comics,e.t.c) are generally like this as they get commercialized and crapified.

However, regardless of how much $h!t the people around you must read, it must have been a refreshing change to find people who are at least competent and literate in their native tongue as opposed to the ''patierotic'' denizens of ol' US of A. :D... no matter who the people around you are, at least they're not typical Americans (To all our respected forum goers from America, I am of course purely JOKING.

''Omnia cum grano salis.''

Sumimasen? bunshou o wakarimasen (Excuse my ignorance...I know that it is latin and have found some phrases that begin with Omnia, but not that exact phrase out of two databases of common latin phrases, would you care to enlighten me?...

I've got this funny sneaking suspicion that it is to do with feces (grano... gano?)

By the way, ''Dust scout'' was an old poster I believe, who wasn't known for being the most positive of fellows (and as you can see, was definitely known for being the most cynical of fellows).

I wonder how many newcomers had images of the cynicism that is typical of the wearied explorer and scout of the deserts of Dune in mind :D

Anyway, this phrase probably isn't appropriate here, but at least it definitely will be when new years comes around, which will finally allow me to correctly say something :D.

Sore de, kurisumasu o-medetou gozaimasu!

[Dante]

Dust Scout

"The Dust Scout is a fast moving and lightly armed (one light cannon) scout unit. Light armor makes it a fragile opponent. However, the dust scout can bury itself in the normally impassable dust bowls, hiding just below the surface until it attacks or is discovered by a closely passing unit. As with all Ordos vehicles, it is very susceptible to damage, with their speed decreasing dramatically once they have been severely hit."

;)

[Sneakgab]

Haha. I thought it rang a bell (and all things considered, I suspected that the person I remembered might have been you) but since I didn't see any reason someone would want to start a new account and since you have almost 6000 replies I thought that the two posters were probably separate people. I suppose you simply got you're name changed whilst basically maintaining you're account? Either that or it has been a very long and/or busy time since you started another.

[SandChigger]

Thanks for the explanation, Dante.

Sneakgab...I understand now where the "gab" part comes from, but what's the "sneak" about? :D

The Japanese themselves may often have difficulty with sarcasm, but that doesn't mean their language can't be used to express it. ;)

(No, <i>Kanikousen</i> is a classic. And I can appreciate it as such without developing a sudden urge to start singing "The Internationale".)

I'd love to stay and read the rest, but I think I hear a conspiracy wingnut calling from another thread.... ;)

[Sneakgab]

''Sneakgab...I understand now where the "gab" part comes from, but what's the "sneak" about? Cheesy''

Is that a pun/jab towards me about me ''gabbing'' to much or a question?:D

if it is a question... I ask myself that everyday  ??? j/k

Actually, the story goes something like this. A long long time ago, on a computer not so far away, I created my first e-mail address. Before that, I had found that ''Gab'' had a nice ring to it to me and was fairly unique (uniqueness for such things seems a bonus). However, on the net it was apparently not as unique forcing me to use something else (didn't want my address to be Gab529 or some such lousy version) and so I eventually combined it with sneak due to my interest in cunning, stealth and the like.

''The Japanese themselves may often have difficulty with sarcasm, but that doesn't mean their language can't be used to express it.''

Am I to take it then that that WAS a sarcastic comment then (or are you simply taking the opportunity to make a helpful comment about the Japanese language? And am I only being too paranoid in asking these questions in the first place:D)? My apologies for perhaps being overdrawn then (But can one expect Sneakgab to stop ''gabbing''... or stop sneaking?). I might be guilty of being too lazy to make my posts as concise as they could be.

[Anathema]

Sand chigger, it took a hell of a long time for even the people who really WERE under the rule of Uncle Joe himself to stop supporting him and to put an end to his style of rule. As a matter of fact, his style of government only came to an end when he did, if I recall correctly (which I very well might not). Although, it seems that such talk is not even necessary from your perspective as you don't seem to think there is any danger of significant movement towards socialism.

Well, when the Germans arrived many minority communities in the Soviet Union hailed them as liberators and even joined them to fight the red army (of course the nazis wouldn't have been any better, but they didn't know that- they only knew how awful the bolshewiks were)

Sadly this provided Stalin all the reason he need to collectively punish entire ethnic groups by deportation or plain genocide.

Stalin staid in power until he died. His successor Kruschev denounced him as a mass murderer, exposing many of his crimes and his inept handling of the war (wich didn't stop self-described communists in the west from glorifying the guy for at least two decades to come, or at least in the Netherlands)

Regardless of wether the SU can be called "socialist" due to a rather large democratic deficit, I think it shows pretty well why command economics don't work. Yugoslavia's economy held out a lot longer precisely because it was the most liberal "communist" country out there, I'd even say closer to western economies then to the SU.

[Sneakgab]

''I think it shows pretty well why command economics don't work''

Well, one can give many examples where ''free economics'' don't work (starvation in the face of overproduction of food and unemployment where there are still many useful things to be produced and services done).It is also possible to give examples of where a touch of command economics (well, market intervention... not sure if it fits the bill) DID work. Anyway, examples are not proof. Of course, large numbers of them can be convincing however.

After all that, it should all be said that Stalin's rule DID empower the SU's economic power by an utterly absurd amount with the production of many resources being increased by large factors in a relatively short time (all in the face of extremely bad condition. Of course, I must say I have not actually examined any numbers about this and am just going with what I generally hear). The problem, of course, was generally the tyrannical reign. 

''democratic deficit''

The damage and suffering caused by Stalin's paranoia (for example) would be unlikely to be found in a democratic country with power closely vested in the people. Obviously, the same goes for many potential troubles caused or allowed and found in countries with other forms of governance.

Also remember that in the democratic style of government sought after by many socialists, the atrocities and insane activities that occurred in the SU would be all but impossible. With power devolved as much as possible to local councils and the like, it is unlikely that such atrocities would occur. I doubt that a local council picked by people many of which might personally know them would decide to commit atrocities upon people they might personally know. At least, it is no more likely for atrocities to be committed in a socialist democratic nation than in a capitalist democratic nation.

In other words, such ''democratic deficits'' can have enormous corrupting effects on socialist governance and performance.

Anyway, looking at the SU, the following can probably be at least reasonably said (despite my ignorance about the SU's economic system and the SU in general)

Regardless of the from of control though, the SU suffered major disadvantages to begin with and the enormous effort that was diverted to security (protection against other countries) and competition with America was perhaps a colossal waste of effort and resources.

Since the decisions made by the SU leadership were far from optimal and perhaps closer to utterly foolish this should be taken into account when considering the economic system employed by the SU. It is not as though the economic system somehow forced them to spend effort and resources building huge and mighty arsenals of conventional and nuclear weapons and to compete with the most powerful country in the world (probably). It is also probably not the case that a country adopting the same economic system must necessarily exist in the same conditions that the SU did ( Having just suffered a WW, suffering another during it's duration, suffering the cold war, suffering from a pathetic economy prior to the change to the new economic system,e.t.c).

Now take note of the ''probablies''. These are put it in because in fact I basically don't know ANYTHING about the SU's economy and it's economic system other than the fact that the production of many resources greatly increased and that many were send to gulags to provide labor.

Well that was all basically about factors that should be taken into consideration when evaluating the SU's economic system.

Looking at a socialist system it can at least be said that their is certainly a possibility that a a form of governance as envisioned by many socialists (power devolved to local councils and the like as much as possible) would have made different decisions and avoided much of the waste and suffering caused by the government the SU had.

However, it may be difficult to say that one form of government is more prone to wise decision making than another and most certainly no form of government would have been able to do much about many of the SU's disadvantages (don't see how a new goverment could change the fact that they are now in control of a previously feudal greatly undeveloped country). However, a form of governance can make some things such as the committing of atrocities close to impossible.

Basically, we should see that a form of economy does not have to come attached with various circumstances, decisions, form of governance, e.t.c.

So, looking at the SU and then denouncing command economics (though I'm not really sure I know what you mean when you say that) as a form of economy that can not possibly succeed is possibly grossly unfair because the SU's economic system does not necessarily have to exist with the rather extreme conditions of the SU (poor conditions,leadership, for of governance e.t.c).

Well, maybe you have something in mind when making this dismissal of command economics but in you're post you simply cite ''the SU'' as ''showing pretty well'' why command economics don't work. Assuming you have the economic performance of the SU in mind when you say that that is unfair for basically the reasons  outlined throughout my post.

So basically, this was just a dam long way of saying that we shouldn't rate command economics solely on a few examples.

To re-iterate about examples: ''Anyway, examples are not proof. Of course, large numbers of them can be convincing however''. Seeing as how forms of economy other than fuedalism and capitalism have been so rarely employed (and certainly we cannot count the SU's satellite state's economies as separate instances) it doesn't seem possible to give a large number of examples. It is most ludicrous to take only 1 or 2 existing examples and from them proclaim that the result will always be the same. If claiming the result as poor, it should be kept in mind that there are even fewer instances still (if any) of command economics being employed in more reasonable conditions.

[Tatar Khan]

Well, one can give many examples where ''free economics'' don't work (starvation in the face of overproduction of food and unemployment where there are still many useful things to be produced and services done).It is also possible to give examples of where a touch of command economics (well, market intervention... not sure if it fits the bill) DID work. Anyway, examples are not proof. Of course, large numbers of them can be convincing however.

Well there is no perfect system all economies are mixed to some extent. However the advantage of the free economy is the fact that it doesn't need to be designed it designs itself with mush less government intervention and proves therefore through capabilities to be adaptable to be more resilient. Since it relies on individual decision making, where individuals make decisions for personal interests than the overall. In the command economy it is the government that makes the decision which causes a lag before implementation of changes as the government has to go through a longer process of discussion and debates and etc. The individuals are able to make such decisions faster with everything being done in their head. The command economy could be easily forced to uphold an unsuccessful project or firm due to political reasons while in the free economy the unsuccessful firms die off (only the strong survive --> evolution), while currently the financial industry in most countries is getting a shoulder to stand on from the government and same goes for Ford, Chrysler and GM, this is due to the fact that effects of their loss are too devastating to be aloud to fail. The Ford, Chrysler and GM problems are actually could be blamed on regulations through trade restrictions which allowed them to go on with reduced competition from the other auto makers. The financial system is the weak point of the current system as its destruction would be devastating to the world to the likes of shut down of the world's industries at once due to its essentially. This is the reason why it is so strongly regulated. However a lot is being made over the current crisis. The financial system survived previous ones in 1970s and late 1980s and it will survive now. The weaker institutions get bought out, some fail, some control fail and than some are rescued than the adjustments occur in regulations and workings of the financial institutions and life goes on.

After all that, it should all be said that Stalin's rule DID empower the SU's economic power by an utterly absurd amount with the production of many resources being increased by large factors in a relatively short time (all in the face of extremely bad condition. Of course, I must say I have not actually examined any numbers about this and am just going with what I generally hear). The problem, of course, was generally the tyrannical reign.

There was a lot of extensive development and the level of growth was high but most developing countries when they go through development process experience high growth, which later falls to lower levels once country becomes developed.

The damage and suffering caused by Stalin's paranoia (for example) would be unlikely to be found in a democratic country with power closely vested in the people. Obviously, the same goes for many potential troubles caused or allowed and found in countries with other forms of governance.

Democratic governments could be skewed. Hitler rose to power using democratic government. You see the problem is that democratic governments are not a perfect solution. The problems such as emotional, rather than logical decision making, lack of knowledge and etc. could be discussed in another thread.

Regardless of the from of control though, the SU suffered major disadvantages to begin with and the enormous effort that was diverted to security (protection against other countries) and competition with America was perhaps a colossal waste of effort and resources.

Since the decisions made by the SU leadership were far from optimal and perhaps closer to utterly foolish this should be taken into account when considering the economic system employed by the SU. It is not as though the economic system somehow forced them to spend effort and resources building huge and mighty arsenals of conventional and nuclear weapons and to compete with the most powerful country in the world (probably). It is also probably not the case that a country adopting the same economic system must necessarily exist in the same conditions that the SU did ( Having just suffered a WW, suffering another during it's duration, suffering the cold war, suffering from a pathetic economy prior to the change to the new economic system,e.t.c).

Now take note of the ''probablies''. These are put it in because in fact I basically don't know ANYTHING about the SU's economy and it's economic system other than the fact that the production of many resources greatly increased and that many were send to gulags to provide labor.

Well that was all basically about factors that should be taken into consideration when evaluating the SU's economic system.

There are never perfect conditions to work with. The economic system must be flexible enough to deal with them. The other countries did not have it easy either, all of them had problems. The failure of SU's economic system is seen through the fact that economy entered a period of stagnation and not enough innovation leading it problems.

[Sneakgab]

It is hard to imagine that a group of competing individuals whose main motive is personal gain rather than the state of the economy who generally would be in the dark of the plans of the other individuals should always or generally perform better than a group of co-operating trained individuals working as an organized team with the motive being the upholding of the economy.

If you are to say that they perform better because they have the motive of profit. Well, there are many other motives, selfish or otherwise. In any case, the positions of these economy planners can be highly paid with holding them being subject to performance. Therefore, any motive found in a free market economics system could also be found in a command economics system (Socialism and communism might not be the only potential forms of economic system that could be run via command economics).

Then there is the matter of training. Now, I realize that when it comes to getting rich these captains of industry have proven themselves regardless of their qualifications,training,e.t.c. However, what is needed is not people who are good at getting rich, but people who are good at maintaining the economy.

With the typical free market economy as it is, it seems extremely difficult to attribute any success to any individual (even for government individuals but especially for non-government people).

Besides, if periodic recession is not evidence that either the captains of industry aren't leading the economy that well or that there is something wrong with the economic system in general then what is...

hmmm... in command economics these men could easily be fired but in free market economics that  is impossible. People COULD buy their companies but since the economy is ruined through one means or another few people have the means, motive, or will to do so. They can only be removed via bankruptcy in which case what happens to the labor and means of labor under their command? I guess it might be sold to banks to pay off debt? Of course, if the point of bankruptcy has been reached then presumably in the capitalist perspective this would indicate poor leadership which was allowed (since the owner is the indisputable boss who need not answer to below nor to above) to be run into the ground by the owner. Well, surely the bankruptcy at least is no good. If the bankruptcy and the resulting waste cannot be blamed on the owners, then what do we blame it on? Bad luck? That may be acceptable in the case of random natural disasters... but I don't see them having much of a direct effect on the auto-mobile industry so it can only be said that the industry geared to a halt due to man-made causes (well, either something happens naturally, not due to man... or unnaturally, due to man. Or is this scenario of waste simply the best possible?).

So, as you can see, in Capitalism unsuccessful projects or firms can also persist if they are held by the sufficiently rich (whereas in democratic command economics they can at least be dismissed if the leadership WILLS it... in other words if they are wise they will remove where necessary whereas such wisdom could be said to be non-applicable in free market economics where non have such authority. In direct democracy, the people decide themselves. What could be better than being able to remove at will? With either democracy or dictatorship none have power in free market economics to remove a failing business whereas with government intervention [touch of command economics] both DO have power. Is that really worse than letting only the owners decide (who have only profit in mind and will maintain stagnation inducing monopolies at their leasure? As for fears of removal of ''good'' businesses we must remember that just because the leadership has the option does not mean they have to exercise it. All that is being provided is option. If you fear making the wrong choice with you're newfound options then can't you just ignore the newfound options?. Just look at the three big US automakers. By the way, it is also important to look at how we look at ''successfulness''. Some jewelry store selling it's various useless pieces of rock and metal mostly to rich people who might gain some negligible boost of pleasure by adorning themselves yet further to further broadcast their already obvious wealth can be viewed as very successful from it's sales while a non-profit organization will automatically have zero ''successfulness'' attributed to it by the same measure. Ie: this success  and ''strength'' you speak about which supposedly leads to evolution (which seems absurd to me as what this system implicatively leads to/is like is much more like assimilation than evolution except that the assimilator does not gain any of the unique characteristics of the assimilated... it is as though their ''biomass'' is simply ''added'') and by which it is decided which companies prosper and dominate does not have anything to do with the usefulness of these companies but only how much money they make.

Perhaps the corrupting element here is that production/supply is determined by demand which is determined by spending power. Most spending power is in the hands of people who NO LONGER HAVE ANYTHING LEFT TO PURCHASE THAT COULD STILL BE USEFUL TO THEM (other than spending their money to make more money, which when successful only re-inforces this problems especially as we all know the only true way one can make money without performing useful labor and what this implicates) and who simultaneously clearly have little interest in the state of others and who therefore do not purchase anything useful for those people.

The implications of all that is obvious. Spending power is used on near useless cr@p which increased demand for said cr@p and therefore diverts production from useful areas to the production of said cr@p.

In addition, since the workers are paid less than the value of their work in order to create profit for their employers, they will never be able to purchase the products of their work. Ie: The labor force is unable to purchase all their fruits leading to unsold and unused goods. After the labor force is done purchasing, (purchases = Value of products

[Tatar Khan]

It is hard to imagine that a group of competing individuals whose main motive is personal gain rather than the state of the economy who generally would be in the dark of the plans of the other individuals should always or generally perform better than a group of co-operating trained individuals working as an organized team with the motive being the upholding of the economy.

The problem is that what does upholding the economy means. Zero inflation or zero unemployment since according to economic theory they are related in the fashion that lower unemployment raises inflation and lower inflation causes higher unemployment. Than there is whole bunch of other conditions and factors and goals. In free-market there less to think about for the government as it is done by somebody else and eventually it all comes together. Government still have certain goals that they follow but they let the automatic forces of free-market to carry out many of the goals.

If you are to say that they perform better because they have the motive of profit. Well, there ... these economy planners can be highly paid with holding them being subject to performance. Therefore, any motive found in a free market economics system could also be found in a command economics system.

Now you moving towards the market socialism more. The problem with the planners is at which level they would get the commissions from their planning, preventing them from collaborating to create false growth. Determining if their performance is up to the par because how would you compare the planner's performance for metal processing industry if he is the only planner or the only planning council in the country. In free market the captain of industry would get kicked out of the market by those who are much better.

Besides, if periodic recession is not evidence that either the captains of industry aren't leading the economy that well or that there is something wrong with the economic system in general then what is

Yes the socialist economy is promised not to have recessions as such things as bubbles or overheating can not occur due to careful planning. The problem is that government planners might be less likely to take risk and so will have lower growth in the economy.

in command economics these men could easily be fired but in free market economics that  is impossible. People COULD buy their companies but since the economy is ruined through one means or another few people have the means, motive, or will to do so. They can only be removed via bankruptcy in which case what happens to the labor and means of labor under their command?

[SandChigger]

My gawd ... if this is what their <b>foreplay</b> is like....  :O

[Sneakgab]

If this is what our foreplay is like, then no one need worry what comes next.:D

[SandChigger]

Ah ... some impotent information you need to share with us? ;)