Communism VS. Capitalism

[Commibl]

I've had this debate in General, Yam, and Beginner Forums, but this really seems to be the place.
Round One: Throw your punches against Communism. Give me your best shot.



-Aidan "Commibl"

[squealpiggy]

It failed.

Anything else to add?

[Twatybollocks]

Originally posted by Commibl
I've had this debate in General, Yam, and Beginner Forums, but this really seems to be the place.
Round One: Throw your punches against Communism. Give me your best shot.



-Aidan "Commibl"
What squealpiggy said and you support it. Nuff said.

[Dødens Knekt]

It does not work for people who like to be huimans

you have to supress human nature to make it work...

[Dr-Electro]

Such generalities are nearly random.

Somebody pitch in here and help these folks out with facts and specifics.

1. What are the major philosophical points of communism?
2. What are the major philosophical points of capitalism?
3. Is economics the primary difference?
4. Is collectivism vs. individualism the major difference?

Any other points one may come up with, please drop them in. If there is enough categorical response, I will create a poll to go with the topic.

Socialists, please note: Allow this debate to continue between communism and capitalism. If you wish to include socialism, start another thread using similar guides and points.

Thank you all. Happy debating!:D

[Mushroom]

Communism is sustainable
Capitalism isn't
'nuff said

(i know it doesn't *strictly* adhere to round 1, but hell...)

[K'uin K'ra]

The revolution is inevitable. Marxist dialectic dictates it - capitalism can moan and whine and exploit more and more people as much as it wants, eventually it's going to collapse.

And I hate people who just say: 'It didn't work' or 'It doesn't work'. The Bolsheviks didn't propagate pure communism i.e. Marxism, they altered it to make the revolution possible in Russia - true communism comes around from inevitability and natural social progression, not forcing the system upon unwanting individuals. Any attempts to institute it before it is needed will fail.

The same goes for trying to force capitalism onto less developed countries, something America is trying to do at this very moment. It won't work; the social system won't support it and it will collapse.

Read 'Das Kapital' and 'The Communist Manifesto', as it explains it far better than I can in a forum post. And if you haven't read those books, you don't deserve an opinion on the matter.

[piemanmoo]

If communism worked, then rafts would be going from flordia to cuba. Not the other way around.

[Rogue]

Originally posted by piemanmoo
If communism worked, then rafts would be going from flordia to cuba. Not the other way around.

well said sir. + to you.

All of the communist governments ever set up have exploited people just as much (and more) than capitalism. Marxists tend to say that 'oh well that was because that was not PURE communism'.

Pure communism is a bunch of ideas written down on paper. In real life nothing is 100% pure and perfect. When the ideas of marxism are transferred to a real government it winds up turning into a disaster.

On a piece of paper humans will act any way you want them to. They will be willing to share everything they work for. In the real world that does not work. People do not want to share everything they work for themselves. And when they are forced to do this by communist governments it turns into hell on earth.

On the other hand 100% pure capitalism does not exist either. Capitalism is not perfect and if it gets out of hand it can end up exploiting people too. Just read a charles dickens novel and you will see capitalism at its worst.

However, a heavily capitalistic government tends to work out far better than a communistic one. Capitalism tends to provide the means for a large middle class to grow.

A large middle class ends a lot of human suffering. Not as many people are poor.

I believe in a mixture of communism and socialism. However the socialism in the government should be dwarfed by the capitalism. I am worried by today's trend towards injecting more and more socialism into the western governments. IT will end in tears.

[pipedreams]

Communsim has never been given time to work in Cuba, the USA done everything they could to ensure this.

Communism is still very much part of China, although I do not think theirs is as pure as cubs's is thought to be.

I think we are learning that the more mix, the better it is, no?


But yes, communism in my opinion restricts while capatalism opens doors.

The thing with communism is that its (supposedly) fair to all whilst capatalism forms weak & strong societies - but maybe these weak societies would still be stronger than that under communism - you following me here?

[plattbridger]

Everyone tends to cite American poverty but America is "more capitalist" than Britain and they have lower poverty rates than us (in fact we have some of Europe's highest poverty rates and most deprived areas, despite the welfare state).

Like pipedreams said Capitalism means freedom, you can do what you like with your life and your money with little government interference. If I started a small business selling oh I dunno... Chocolate Cauliflowers and it took off I would have to expand and who knows I could end up like Coca Cola but is that a bad thing? I provide something people want, and if my company is not government owned then government watchdogs can keep and eye on it and the consumers can have a DIRECT influence on the company either through consumer groups etc or by getting a share and owning part of the company. If something’s government owned then the police police themselves and that never works.

Everyone also goes on about the way that capitalism is exploiting countries for cheap labour, in these kinds of countries what may seem like a pittance to use is a considerably lot more to the workers I forget the exact figures quoted in the news but in factories in Vietnam they are getting paid not far off what doctors earn. Every single developed country to get where it is has to go through industrialisation for places like Britain this was no problem, British people and British business could set up and boost the British economy which they did- Vietnamese companies (and others) will never be able to do this in today’s global economy so to say sweat shops are unfair is hardly justified. In the 60s Taiwan was exactly the same a mostly rural agriculturally based economy- the internationals set up there and now look at Taiwan it has one of Asia’s strongest economies.

Then look at countries in Africa, where the governments (in most cases) do not allow or welcome foreign companies in and they themselves (usually corruptly) control business.

Like I say just look through history how the economies of countries have developed and it’s all exactly the same story. Whether it's Richard Arkwright, Robert Owen, Titus Salt et al in Britain with cotton or internationals in Taiwan (and soon the Philippines, Thailand etc to) with electronics. It’s all a stepping stone and a stage towards what we see as a modern economy, and due to certain empires etc most countries have yet to have the chance to make that step.


Though as for Cuba perhaps it's economy and people would fair better with out American trade embargos etc.

[elbillingino]

Originally posted by plattbridger
Everyone tends to cite American poverty but America is "more capitalist" than Britain and they have lower poverty rates than us (in fact we have some of Europe's highest poverty rates and most deprived areas, despite the welfare state).


It depends on the statistics. They have higher child poverty rates.

France is 'less capitalist' than us, but has lower rates. Chile was the most capitalist country even in existence - it was an experiment in complete deregulation and free markets but had vast, soaring poverty (and unemployment). It was actually Keynsian, even Socialist policies, which saved the Chilean economy in the end. So your argument there is flawed.

Moreover, the IMF's intervention in economies across the world to make them 'more capitalist' has led to many of their collapse and soaring poverty and unemployment. I suggest you read 'Globalisation and It's Discontents' by Joseph Stiglitz

[plattbridger]

A person in poverty is a person in poverty whether they are 6 or 60. And it was quite a sizeable difference in % of the population as well, don't quote me but i think it was something like 22% in the UK and 12% in the US.

The fact that our pensioners are amongst the poorest in Europe AND have their pensions taxed is absolutely abhorrent to my mind.

Any my point had nothing to do with Chile or the world’s most capitalist country… :confused:

Cuba is communist and they have poverty like I said, that’s not necessarily to do with Castro though.


I know I posted a hell of a ramble but surely someone must want to reply to it? :D


ah well i see Commibl has already been got :D

[elbillingino]

I refer you to France again. Arguably a near-Socialist country, with lower poverty rates than Britain and America. Same with Germany. You cannot compare the poverty rates of the two, there may be other factors involved than our respective economic systems.

You said America was 'more capitalist', thus suggested that that's why they have lower poverty rates. So I refered you to Chile, which was an experiment in the total free market. I was merely pointing out how flawed your comparison was.

[plattbridger]

Fair enough but do you actually have anything to contribute to the debate? :confused:

[elbillingino]

Yes, I've found something else you posted which was a bit dodgy.

Socialist / Welfare statist policies actually made African countries better off than in the free market. Most IMF plans force African countries to privatise everything to become a 'modern economy', and their economies' end up on the floor invariably, under the IMF shock plans, which invariably allow, even encourage, foreign companies in.

Bringing it back to the point, communism itself doesn't work, but neither does complete capitalism. Besides, most economies are mixed, its all about finding a balance and sticking with it.

[Dr-Electro]

The point at which this debate inevitably weakens is its failure to account for individual greed in any society. The system in power over government in any given country sets the trend for its economy. However, individual greed begins to take its toll either through corruption or dominance of markets.

In the USSR, the government began to take more and more from the collective worker. The Supreme Soviet claimed that the worker state paid no taxes and that all property was the property of the collective. While all this propaganda was hitting the airwaves and printed pages, the commissars lived in palaces while the workes lived in slums and shacks.

The commissars had toilet paper and the peasants wiped the collective butt with leaves, when leaves were available. The commissars dined on caviar and the peasants were lucky to have an ounce of meat with the collective borscht pot.

Flip the coin over and look at the capitalist side. In America in particular, (I'm using personal experience here.) the individual greed is not all seated in government, although American politicians are hardly better than Soviet commissars when it comes to graft and corruption.

Corporate greed in capitalist societies, particularly here in the US, has robbed the workers of pay, benefits and job security. We are selling off our jobs wholesale to overseas markets, not because it makes economic sense to utilize sweat shop labor, but because while retail prices remain the same or increase, the labor cost drops dramatically.

Where does this economic windfall go? Not to the remaining workers whose blood, sweat and tears made it all possible in the first place, but to the bastards who run the corporations. They are giving themselves personal raises of hundreds of millions of dollars while the average working family loses most or all of their income. We are now suffering our worst unemployment since 1929. The government figures are inaccurate because the government does not count the poor sods whose unemployment benefits have run out.

Our unemployment benefits have a maximum of 13 months and have a monetary cap as well. Once the benefit is gone, they are no longer interested in that individual at all. The so-called, "job placement assistance," ends with the unemployment checks. When a person is at that stage, that person is truly and wholly going it alone. Some employers will not even consider an applicant whose benefits have expired.

So, who is greedier? The totalitarian state that hogs the lion's share of the collective's produce or the high-hatted corporate owners and directors who eat the little man for breakfast?

There may be advantages to either system, but no matter where you make the cut, the poorest people get poorere while the wealthiest get richer. The inequality is there, regardless of the governing principle.

[plattbridger]

Exactly political corruption and econmics are (often) separate. Well like I say you can say all these fat cats are rolling in the blood of their employees but it’s a step that every single country must go through to develop economically, it is wrong that these companies are doing it largely to increase their profits but that should be up to government regulation and in America you seem very apprehensive to do anything about big business rather just leaving it be- i.e. Enron.

The general idea is the government and its organisations such as the Monopolies Commission keep big companies in check and make sure they are passing on any savings to the consumer. There was a big case over here a few months back where sports retailers where fined Millions by the government for basically overcharging.

And like I said then you also have consumer groups and don’t forget not all the profits go to the fat cats but also to the shareholders, who are the consumers.

[cervantes]

Originally posted by elbillingino
.......Socialist / Welfare statist policies actually made African countries better off than in the free market. Most IMF plans force African countries to privatise everything to become a 'modern economy', and their economies' end up on the floor invariably, under the IMF shock plans, which invariably allow, even encourage, foreign companies in.....

To say that the IMF policies invariably lead to economic failiure is wrong. There are many examples of IMF policies working in africa, south east asia, eastern europe, as well as south america, most recently in argentina.
The biggest problem with the IMF is the inflexability of its recovery plans. The IMF is by no means alway sucessfull, but the fact that by its very nature the IMF is dealing with the weakest and least developed economies does skew the figures.

Taiwan is a good example of an underdeveloped economy opening up successfuly to international trade. sweat shops producing almost exlusivly for export typified the earlier period of taiwanese industrialisation, this built the foundations for the later economic and political development. Today taiwan is a world leader in the export of electronics, ship biulding, light industry and the like, with an income per capita of $15K (roughly) the standard of living doesnt compare badly with more developed western economies.

if done right globalisation is the best way of eradicating poverty and the disparity between the rich and poor. it is the inequitous way that the western (or i think maybe a north south divide is broadly more accurate) governments subsidise indigenous industries, principly agriculture, to the detrement of the devloping world. The CAP and american farm subsidies have done far more damage to the third world than the any other single factor, post colonialism.

just so that this post isnt completly off topic here's an anagram of my name: halt jolly inebriat commies (sort of about sums up my viewes)

[elbillingino]

Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank claims the IMF has 'condemned people to death'

The spiky haired protesters believe there is some kind of grand conspiracy between the corporate powers, the IMF, the World Bank and several agencies.

Obviously, they're wrong, as the details are far more stomach-churning than that. In March 2001 Ecuador's government raised the price of cooking oil by 80% and hungry protesters burned the capital. This price hike had been directed by the IMF and World Bank some months before, knowing it could set the country ablaze. It's almost as if the protests are scheduled in the plans.

And they are. 'We called them the IMF riots' says Stiglitz. The riots and the 'resolve' (police, crackdown) are programmed.

The IMF has a one-size fits all plan for every country.

Step 1 is privatisation. National leaders are forced to sell off state industries, happily flogging the electricity and water companies for 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts. Stiglitz claims that this corruption stripped Russia's industrial assets, nearly halving national output, causing economic depression and starvation.

It's worth pointing out Stiglitz is no conspiracy nutter. He was a member of Bill Clinton's cabinet as chairman of the President's council for economic advisers.

Anyway, step 2 is Capital Market Liberalisation, which means repealing any nations law that slows down or taxes any money jumping ovet the borders.

This is remarkably similar to GATS, which very worryingly could come become global law in the not too distant future http://www.gatswatch.org/

In theory capital market deregulation allows foreign banks and multinational corporations' investment capital to flow in and out. However, in countries like Brazil and Indonesia, the money just flowed out and out and out. Stiglitz calls this 'hot money' - cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first sign of trouble. A nations reserves can drain in hours. Then, to seduce speculators, the IMF demands the country increase it's interest rates to 30% 50% then 80% Higher interest rates demolished property values, savaged industrial production and drained national assets.

Step 3 is market based pricing, a fancy term for raising prices. This leads to the 'IMF riot' as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998 and the whole country exploded into riots.

Step 4 is 'poverty reduction strategy'- free trade. In the Opium Wars the West used military blockades to force markets to open for their unbalanced trade. Today the World Bank can use a financial blockade - just as effective. :twisted: These poverty reduction strategies were devised in secret. Stiglitz's greatest fear is that the IMF's plans are devised in secret, never open for discourse or dissent.

The IMF could previously point to Argentina as an economic success, but its economy did collapse relatively recently ... I could provide many facts and figures all pointing in the direction that it was the IMF which wrecked Argentina's economy.

And you may cite Taiwan, but there are also examples of increases in productivity being achieved whilst keeping services in the public domain - it's CORPORISATION not privatisation with which the largest gains can often be associated, and Poland and China are good examples of this.

[cervantes]

Originally posted by elbillingino
The IMF has a one-size fits all plan for every country.......

......And you may cite Taiwan, but there are also examples of increases in productivity being achieved whilst keeping services in the public domain - it's CORPORISATION not privatisation with which the largest gains can often be associated, and Poland and China are good examples of this.

I concede the point about the inflexability of the IMF recovery plan (sic)

poland has not been free of the trouble you associate with the IMF, during the 90's poland experianced a general strike in protest at increases in the cost of electricity (20%) gas (70%) and municipal heating bills (100%) According to polish trade unions during this period between 70%-80% of workers went on strike. inflation hit as much as 55% and the economy went into reccesion. It was only after reforms along the lines of IMF policy that inflation was brought back under control and growth restored.

china has also started to moved down the road towards libralising its economy. when china joined the WTO it removed many of the restrictions on foriegn capital investment and foriegn owned companies operating on the chinese mainland. China is currently looking for foreign (non chinese) investment banks and related industrials to take minority stakes in government owned industries, such as steel, coal mining, automotive manufacturers and several of chinas largest banks, there was a rush to invest in these companies on the understanding that this was the first step to full privatisation, obviously not in the near future but that is definatly the way the chinese government see's as the way to grow the economy, as it has for so many years been lagging behind nearly all the other south east asian emerging economies. the chinese economy is still very much under developed, a country with more than 1100 million people yet it has a GDP less than that of the UK

[Dr-Electro]

This has turned into an absolutely civil discussion. I am proud of you all.

On a way, way, way off topic note: I dreamed I changed the title of this topic to "Cannibalism vs. Vegetarianism" :rolleyes: When I start dreaming about the forums, I need to consider changing my life a bit. (NAH! I'll just change the dreams to suit myself. ) :D

[plattbridger]

Originally posted by cervantes
To say that the IMF policies invariably lead to economic failiure is wrong. There are many examples of IMF policies working in africa, south east asia, eastern europe, as well as south america, most recently in argentina.
The biggest problem with the IMF is the inflexability of its recovery plans. The IMF is by no means alway sucessfull, but the fact that by its very nature the IMF is dealing with the weakest and least developed economies does skew the figures.

Taiwan is a good example of an underdeveloped economy opening up successfuly to international trade. sweat shops producing almost exlusivly for export typified the earlier period of taiwanese industrialisation, this built the foundations for the later economic and political development. Today taiwan is a world leader in the export of electronics, ship biulding, light industry and the like, with an income per capita of $15K (roughly) the standard of living doesnt compare badly with more developed western economies.

if done right globalisation is the best way of eradicating poverty and the disparity between the rich and poor. it is the inequitous way that the western (or i think maybe a north south divide is broadly more accurate) governments subsidise indigenous industries, principly agriculture, to the detrement of the devloping world. The CAP and american farm subsidies have done far more damage to the third world than the any other single factor, post colonialism.

just so that this post isnt completly off topic here's an anagram of my name: halt jolly inebriat commies (sort of about sums up my viewes)

Yea that's what I was trying to say only explained a hell of a lot better :D

But again what elbillingo is saying is pretty much entirely to do with governments and their actions if they do stupid things are interfere where and when not necessary then rioting and poverty will pretty much always ensue. Look what happened when our government took us into the ERM it lead to the worst economic melt down the country had seen since the Great Depression. It is government’s not international bodies that are to blame; I can't see the EU (or EEC as it was) being to blame for my example.

The same with China and deregulation entirely down to their government. The same with Britain and its privatisation if you divide a service up into over 60 separate franchises you are asking for trouble and why did they do that? The money, more franchises means more money.

Which is why when government leaves alone, as capitalism desires, you get prosperity- ie 19th century Britain or 20th century Taiwan.

[cervantes]

Originally posted by plattbridger
Yea that's what I was trying to say only explained a hell of a lot better :D

......I can't see the EU (or EEC as it was) being to blame for my example.

The same with China and deregulation entirely down to their government. The same with Britain and its privatisation if you divide a service up into over 60 separate franchises you are asking for trouble and why did they do that? The money, more franchises means more money.

Which is why when government leaves alone, as capitalism desires, you get prosperity- ie 19th century Britain or 20th century Taiwan.

Firstly the EU is responsible, through the CAP, for one of the most damaging and unjust barriers to international free (fair) trade. The CAP is holding back those most in need of free trade, by making their exports uncompetative compared with their EU subsidised counterparts. It is primarely (but not exclusively) in the least developed economies that agriculture will play a principle role, for example Less than 2% of britains workforce is employed in agriculture, yet subsidies paid to sustain this uncopetative industry are about 7 times the total value of exports from Kenya, a country with a 81% dependancy on agriculture. Inspite of the costs of production and the costs asociated with it being considerably lower in kenya, exports are made less competative by the CAP, thus retarding or even preventing economic devlopment.

The manner in which railway privatisation was undertaken, wasnt, i dont think, inherantly flawed.The mistake ,i think, was in discouraging consolidation at an early stage, the smaller franchises should have been the starting point, from which consolidation was encouraged. This was an instance where central government interferance would, in the long run, have benafited the market. government interferance could be justified by limiting it to a specific goal, namely the corretion of previous interferance.

Keynes put forward the arguement that the financial markets upset the balance within the "real" economy, to counter this imbalance he percieved in the economy, he suggested the financial markets should be toughly regulated and actively directed, the suggestion was this should be done through an activist monetary policy, so that the "real" economy could flourish. He argued this could be funded through a budget deficit, that would be balanced over the course of the economic cycle. This to me, sounds like more than simple microeconomics and too much like central control. There is, though, an arguement for some form of central control and a degree of interferance.

[plattbridger]

The EU wants to scrap the CAP

The French government is countering this. And the EUs CAP is a government scheme created by governments working together in the European Parliament. I rest my case.

As for the railways they worked fine for over 100 years before the government got their hands on them. When it was privatised it should have been returned to the old system it's fair to say it was tried and tested. The franchise would run the rolling stock, the tracks, the stations, the time tables etc etc.

The Government should monitor not control an economy- it always works best that way.

Again to quote the railways as an example or the CAP or the economic strength of the USA compared to the USSR.

[cervantes]

Originally posted by plattbridger
The EU wants to scrap the CAP

The French government is countering this. And the EUs CAP is a government scheme created by governments working together in the European Parliament. I rest my case.

As for the railways they worked fine for over 100 years before the government got their hands on them. When it was privatised it should have been returned to the old system it's fair to say it was tried and tested. The franchise would run the rolling stock, the tracks, the stations, the time tables etc etc.

The Government should monitor not control an economy- it always works best that way.

Again to quote the railways as an example or the CAP or the economic strength of the USA compared to the USSR.

I concede classification of the EU as a governmental organisation.

My point about the railways, was that the best way to create a successful rail network was to allow the constituant companies to consolidate the market, the most effective way of stimulating "natural" consolidation was create lots of smaller franchises. but the problem was that having created franchises to small to be successful individualy, the government then decided to remove as many of the incentives to consolidate as they could. This was due almost entirly to t he fact that the govenment was percieved to have sold of the railways too cheaply, so to have allowed all the franchises to have merged down to three or four larger companies wouldnt have politicaly expiedient. I think "natural" consolidation along those line would be far less arbitary than "putting it back to the way it was"

The economic strength of the USA in comparison to the former USSR, is of very little merit, as the former USSR is a disaster created by fiscal and economic mismangement not specific to any political or economic doctrine.
The us is by no means the best examlpe of a deregulated economy, there are things like farm subsidies (the value cotton subsidies last year was almost twice the market value of the cotton itself) tarrifs on steel imports, foreign ownership of a majority holding any of the american airlines is prohibited and huge government spending typified by a $1.3 trillion budget deficit, to me that sounds like typical "big" government.
Poverty in the USA increased considerably over the last few decades from it lowest point in the 60's. A congressional commision recently reported that there were 23 million people in america using food stamps and a similar number's primary source of food was soup kitchens, according to figures compiled by the World Bank for the UN human development index, just over 20% of Americans live below the poverty line (the standard for the poverty line is also devised by the World Bank)

[plattbridger]

Well the railway privatisation is a thread in itself but it is fair comment to say that the government did not do a good job of it. Regulating the railways by making sure no one had too much power over them did not work as no one had much power and there were so many bodies that had to work together it could not work.

In the USSR all big business was run by the government and smaller business heavily monitored and regulated, as well as restrictions on personal freedom as well obviously.

I know that they are not both model examples of either end of the scale and you cannot have black and white economies it is all shades of grey so even very capitalist countries have subsidies yes. And Tariffs and subsidies are most definitely not the tools of a global economy.

When the government does absolutely nothing you get the Great Depression when the government pulls all the strings you end up in the same place.

In 1999 the PSE (Poverty and Social Exclusion) Survey found;

25 per cent of the adult population live in poverty
2 per cent are rising from poverty
12 per cent are potentially vulnerable to poverty
61 per cent do not live in poverty.

in Britain. And like I said we play host to some of Europe’s most deprived area's namely Cornwall, the North East and the valleys in Southern Wales. This is largely down to the government NOT interfering and promoting business and in all of the cases these are regions which relied heavily on what were Nationalised Industries such as Mining and Ship Building.

[elbillingino]

Originally posted by cervantes


The economic strength of the USA in comparison to the former USSR, is of very little merit, as the former USSR is a disaster created by fiscal and economic mismangement not specific to any political or economic doctrine.


Yet the Soviet economy under the stewardship of the IMF is still completely wrecked? As with nearly all major economies controlled by the IMF?

I was reading up on Taiwan and apparently

"Although not as involved in Taiwan's economy as during the initial phases of economic development, the KMT government still controls directly 'strategically important' industries. In total, the government controls 27 national corporations with the largest 12 operating under the supervision of the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA). The largest ranking corporations are the China Petroleum Company, China Steel, China Shipbuilding and Tai-Power. The Taiwan provincial government also controls 33 enterprises including the Taiwan Wine and Tobacco Monopoly Bureau, as well as 11 major commercial banks.

The problem with determining the exact amount of KMT government involvement in Taiwan's economy, is the government's treatment of state-owned corporations as privately owned. This makes it very difficult to determine exactly what proportion in Taiwan's economy the private sector constitutes. Nevertheless, such statistics do indicate that since the 1950s, there has been marked growth in private sector production and is of prime importance in Taiwan's economy today. "


Moreover, "Despite less direct involvement in Taiwan's economy, the KMT has not forfeited its authority in economic planning. The government has played a key role in the shaping of the Taiwanese economy since its retreat from the mainland, and still continues to do so. Taking the form of economic plans that may vary in length, the government decides which industries to promote, and when to fine-tune the economy. "

"The public sector was a major force in Taiwan's economy during the 1950s. During the 1980s and 1990s, it has capitulated to the private sector. In 1959, the private sector was responsible for 51.3% of industrial production, but by 1988, it had strengthened its dominance to 81.9%. Government involvement in Taiwan's economy has therefore gradually weakened since the 1950s. "


So slow privatisation, as I advocated ... was responsible for Taiwan's economic growth ... and the government still retains a big role in the planning of the economy and its infrastructure. Mass privatisation does not work ... so thank you for supporting my points by bringing up Taiwan, Cervantes.

Originally posted by cervantes
I concede the point about the inflexability of the IMF recovery plan (sic)

poland has not been free of the trouble you associate with the IMF, during the 90's poland experianced a general strike in protest at increases in the cost of electricity (20%) gas (70%) and municipal heating bills (100%) According to polish trade unions during this period between 70%-80% of workers went on strike. inflation hit as much as 55% and the economy went into reccesion. It was only after reforms along the lines of IMF policy that inflation was brought back under control and growth restored.

china has also started to moved down the road towards libralising its economy. when china joined the WTO it removed many of the restrictions on foriegn capital investment and foriegn owned companies operating on the chinese mainland. China is currently looking for foreign (non chinese) investment banks and related industrials to take minority stakes in government owned industries, such as steel, coal mining, automotive manufacturers and several of chinas largest banks, there was a rush to invest in these companies on the understanding that this was the first step to full privatisation, obviously not in the near future but that is definatly the way the chinese government see's as the way to grow the economy, as it has for so many years been lagging behind nearly all the other south east asian emerging economies. the chinese economy is still very much under developed, a country with more than 1100 million people yet it has a GDP less than that of the UK

Which reforms? They didn't privatise everything, as the IMF would have had them done. They kept many things in state ownership - they did not asset strip, as the IMF would have had them done. If the IMF had gained control of Poland, it would have crippled its economy, as it did virtually every other country. Whereas, Poland ignored the IMF and increased its productivity. Botswana did the same. The IMF ignores the will of the people in respective countries'. According to Kolodko 'Poland did not look to the international financial community for approval. Instead WE WANTED POLISH CITIZENS TO GO ALONG WITH THESE REFORMS. So salaries and pensions were paid and adjusted for inflation. There were unemployment benefits. We respected our own society while doing tough negotiating with international investors and financial institutions'

The IMF allocates near exactly the same recovery plan to every country - then proceeds to wreck economies with it. They don't analyse the needs of respective economies, they just wade in there with text book economics.

Poland and China employed alternative strategies to those advocated by the Washington Consensus (IMF, in other words). Poland started with shock therapies to bring down hyperinflation. But they quickly realised that although this was good for bringing down hyperinflation, it was not good for societal change. It pursued a gradualist policy of privatisation (nothing wrong with that, it's just the IMF's privatise everything NOW NOW NOW approach which leads to economic ruin), whilst simulateneously building up the basic institutions of a market economy, as it recognised without these the economy could not function (in contrast, the Czech Republic privatised corporations before it did banks. The state banks continued to lend to privatised corps and the privatised entities were not subject to rigorous budgetry constraint, etc., so didn't reform and had low productivity. Kolodko has argued that the success of the country in increasing productivity was going against the IMF's recommendations - it did not engage in rapid privatisation, and it did not put reducing inflation to lower and lower levels over all other economic concerns. It did, however emphasise something the IMF had paid insufficient attention - having democratic support for the reforms.

The GRADUAL PROCESS OF PRIVATISATION - REMEMBER, NOT PRIVATISATING EVERYTHING, IN AN IMF MANNER allowed restructing to take place prior to privatisation, and the large firms could be re-organised into smaller units. A new vibrant small enterprise sector was created headed by young managers willing to invest in the future.

China's success over the past decade stands in marked contrast to Russia's (and the IMF's) failure. China grew at an average rate of 10% in the 1990s, Russia declined at an average rate of 5.6%. China's transition entailed THE LARGEST REDUCTION OF POVERTY IN HISTORY IN SUCH A SHORT TIME SPAN (from 358m in 1990 to 208m in 1997). Russia's transition, under the IMF has entailed the largest increases in poverty in history in such a short space of time, outside war-time, famine etc.

The contrast between China and Russia's strategy could not be clearer . China's reforms began in agriculture , with the movement from the commune (collective) system to 'individual responsibility' system - effective, PARTIAL privatisation. It was not complete privatisation; individuals could not buy and sell land freely, but the gains in output showed how much could be made from such reforms. It was an enormous achievement, using hundreds of millions of workers, accomplished in just a few years

Then, they called on several economists, including Kenneth Arrow, who had been awarded a Nobel Prize, partly for his work on the foundations of a market economy, providing the mathematic underpinnings that explained why and when market economies work. Not stupid text book economics of the IMF.

[Mexican Pie]

Hey, wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald labled (or maybe he was) a Communist? I think that's another reason why people hate Communism.

I speech I saw on a comedy show last night:

Black President says:
"I know who shot JFK- it was Lee Harvey Oswald. He shot him with the magic bullet. Take note that the bullet was actually magic. We have known about magic for some time..."