NationStates Jolt Archive

Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa has signed a decree giving the state a greater share of profits from foreign oil companies working in his country.

He said the 50% of windfall oil profits stipulated in a law passed last year was not enough, and the state should now receive 99%.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7029244.stm
I disagree with this, it should be more like 99.99999999999999999999999%

President Correa is a trained economist...he has to be smarter than this. The only explanation I can see is a move meant to please his masters in Venezuela. It'll backfire, their economy will sink in to yet another economic recession, and everybody will say "I told you so". This kind of stuff has always failed and always will fail because it's a simple, obvious fact that the private sector is better at running the economy than the state.

The state and private sector should work together, not against each other. This petty, quasi-socialist stuff just plain doesn't work and it will bring a lot of undue economic damage to their country.

President Correa is a trained economist...he has to be smarter than this. The only explanation I can see is a move meant to please his masters in Venezuela. It'll backfire, their economy will sink in to yet another economic recession, and everybody will say "I told you so".

This kind of stuff has always failed and always will fail because it's a simple, obvious fact that the private sector is better at running the economy than the state.

How do you define 'better'?, if the revenue doesn't benefit the people under socialist principle then it's useless full stop, I agree with bureaucracy doesn't work though, which is why he should put it under direct worker syndicalist control at the most grassroots level.

How do you define 'better'?, if the revenue doesn't benefit the people under socialist principle then it's useless full stop, I agree with bureaucracy doesn't work though, which is why he should put it under direct worker syndicalist control at the most grassroots level.

The problem is, these kinds of businesses don't lend themselves well to that kind of organization. Oil companies are generally extremely big and require extensive cooperation between all sectors of the company, which means you need some kind of top-down organization to keep all of the parts working together. We're talking projects with 20, 30, 40 year timeframes; there's a good chance the people working today won't be when the project is finally concluded.

Now, if Ecuadorians want to form a company under the control of the workers to produce oil, all the power to them. It would be a good way for them to test out the applicability of such a model; there's nothing necessarily against it, but it hasn't been tried before. If it works, they would produce some real change in their industry.

blah blah blah ...the Venezuelan economy will sink in to yet another economic recession, and everybody will say "I told you so". ....Has not happened.
.
blah blah blah ...the Bolivian economy will sink in to yet another economic recession, and everybody will say "I told you so". ....Has not happened.
.
blah blah blah ...the Ecuador economy will sink in to yet another economic recession, and everybody will say "I told you so". ....:rolleyes:



just When is this supposed doomsday going to happen for the Bolivarian countries?
You guys are singing the same Chavez song like a broken record, month after month.. year after year..

I mean.. I know even a broken clock gets to get it right once in a while.. but you guys are not even getting that. :D

Has not happened.

The highest rate of inflation in Latin America, a plunging growth rate, an oil sector in recession and a currency that isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Not to mention shortages and the proliferation of a government bureaucracy that does nothing; I imagine the government can keep up the appearance of growth as long as it keeps the bureaucracy expanding, but there's only

That's not to say Chavez hasn't used his money wisely at times; I don't think anyone can argue the merits of spending tax dollars on infrastructure, schools, clean water, or slum improvement. However, his good polices are based on a fundamentally flawed economic policy that will collapse. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

just When is this supposed doomsday going to happen for the Bolivarian countries?

Probably in the next few years. Venezuela's growth rate is nosediving; it's down to 8% this year and 6% the year after, and it's starting to sink in thanks to the soaring rate of inflation and emergence of an increasingly large black-market economy. The oil production levels used to calculate their budget data is more than a third above the real numbers. Everything is pointing towards a massive economic disruption, especially if Venezuela's oil production and US oil demand continue their declines.

The "revolution" is a sham based upon phony, nonexistent numbers, in the same manner as Enron, WorldCom, or any number of unscruplulous corporations that deceived their investors with number games.

Probably in the next few years. "Probably" means nothing.

any stupid/moron/incompetent stock broker can say "Japan or Korea or France will Probably have a recession in the next 10 years".. and since he used the word "Probably" I cant sue his ass..
and he always has a 10% chance to be lucky.
----------------------

Bottom line:
Comparing to the other Latin American Countries The Venezuelan economy is doing good,

Venezuelans are doing better with Chavez.
and Bolivians are doing better with Morales.

and that is why they are going to re-elect them.

And contrary to your -childish- Doomsday predictions, mine are going to happen -on schedule- as promised.. Wanna bet?

;)

The "revolution" is a sham based upon phony, nonexistent numbers, in the same manner as Enron, WorldCom, or any number of unscruplulous corporations that deceived their investors with number games."the revolution is a sham"?
"based upon phony nonexistent numbers"?
"deceiving people with number games"?

So all my numbers are phony.. and all your numbers are "the truth"..

never mind the fact that -so far- I have not presented any numbers.
Preemptive attack? thats so... "republican" ;)

Preemptive attack? thats so... "republican" ;)

Your next argument is obviously going to be a strawman with ad hominen tendencies.

I love the pseudo intellectual 'criticisms' of Chavez, but I know that all of them eventually come down to the same opportunistic disguised argument - 'I am a reactionary and I hate socialism'.

"the revolution is a sham"?

One might see Chavez's clearly anti-democratic tendencies as a sign that the revolution has been betrayed.

"based upon phony nonexistent numbers"?
"deceiving people with number games"?

I'd say using an oil production figure that's 33% higher than the actual amount being produced to create cheery budget data is a classic example of playing around with numbers. Especially when said budget supports a large chunk of the economy through its social spending.

If you've got 20% inflation, you're doing something wrong.

One might see Chavez's clearly anti-democratic tendencies as a sign that the revolution has been betrayed.



I'd say using an oil production figure that's 33% higher than the actual amount being produced to create cheery budget data is a classic example of playing around with numbers. Especially when said budget supports a large chunk of the economy through its social spending.

If you've got 20% inflation, you're doing something wrong.
Lol, you remind me of the crybaby Trots who try to use entryism on Leninist parties these days. Scumbags they are.

Wholly shit!!!That means that if these money go to welfare state,and not to burrocratic pockets,the majority of people will live better,less people are going to be poor and the rich will stop being so rich... My God,a country without enormous numbers of poor people??? This is a tragedy,people should only work for their masters to be more rich.The poor should be greatfull that we have a high rate of economy,no matter if they get poorer and poorer...

Yes,I am liberal.

Stupid liberals,you economic policies are like the Medieval...

President Correa is a trained economist...he has to be smarter than this. The only explanation I can see is a move meant to please his masters in Venezuela. It'll backfire, their economy will sink in to yet another economic recession, and everybody will say "I told you so". This kind of stuff has always failed and always will fail because it's a simple, obvious fact that the private sector is better at running the economy than the state.

The state and private sector should work together, not against each other. This petty, quasi-socialist stuff just plain doesn't work and it will bring a lot of undue economic damage to their country.

I'm sorry, Vetalia, but I don't see what exactly you are complaining about. What, exactly, will backfire? Correa is not nationalising industries, nor is he enlarging the amount of control the state has over the market. This is just an increase in the amount of taxes paid on a certain type of profit.

Everything is still in private sector hands.

President Correa is a trained economist...he has to be smarter than this. The only explanation I can see is a move meant to please his masters in Venezuela. It'll backfire, their economy will sink in to yet another economic recession, and everybody will say "I told you so". This kind of stuff has always failed and always will fail because it's a simple, obvious fact that the private sector is better at running the economy than the state.

The state and private sector should work together, not against each other. This petty, quasi-socialist stuff just plain doesn't work and it will bring a lot of undue economic damage to their country.


Then how you explain the fact that the Soviet economy in 1921 didn't have electricity and in 1945 they had nuclear weapons?The made a step of two centuries in 25 years.And if the rates in a planned economy are falling, why the European Union has a rate of 2,5% when the Soviet Union had for 20 years a rate of 30% per year???

Then how you explain the fact that the Soviet economy in 1921 didn't have electricity and in 1945 they had nuclear weapons (+ satellites in 1957)
They made a step of two centuries in 25 years.???like-Vetalia: "Its because they are Enron and WoldCom.. and... and... they are a sham and they use phony numbers, nonexistent numbers, they deceived us with number games."

:D

Then how you explain the fact that the Soviet economy in 1921 didn't have electricity and in 1945 they had nuclear weapons?The made a step of two centuries in 25 years.

The Soviet economy during the Stalin years (and to a lesser extent the rest of its duration) was heavily focussed on capital goods, which allowed massive growth in infrastrucutre. However, consumer goods production suffered leading to great difficulties for people to get basic items. The political culture of the Soviet Union which 'discouraged' the criticism of superiors meant that the economic plans created by the Soviet leadership could not be improved upon if they were found to be ineffective.

And if the rates in a planned economy are falling, why the European Union has a rate of 2,5% when the Soviet Union had for 20 years a rate of 30% per year???

Please tell me you didn't in all seriousness compare the growth rates of the emerging, unindustrialised economy of the Soviet Union with the mature industrialised economy of the EU. Next you'll be claiming that a ten year increase in life expectancy in a third world country means it has a better health system than in the EU, because life expectancies are growing slowly in there.

The Soviet economy during the Stalin years (and to a lesser extent the rest of its duration) was heavily focussed on capital goods, which allowed massive growth in infrastrucutre. However, consumer goods production suffered leading to great difficulties for people to get basic items. The political culture of the Soviet Union which 'discouraged' the criticism of superiors meant that the economic plans created by the Soviet leadership could not be improved upon if they were found to be ineffective.That really does NOT address his point about "1921 didn't have electricity and in 1945 they had nuclear weapons?The made a step of two centuries in 25 years."

That really does NOT address his point about "1921 didn't have electricity and in 1945 they had nuclear weapons?The made a step of two centuries in 25 years."

Yes it does. My point is that rapid growth in capital production was achieved at the expense of consumer good production. They may have made a great leap in infrastructure over 25 years, but people still couldn't get basic consumer goods. Hardly something that I'd brag about.

How do you define 'better'?, if the revenue doesn't benefit the people under socialist principle then it's useless full stop, I agree with bureaucracy doesn't work though, which is why he should put it under direct worker syndicalist control at the most grassroots level.

Not everyone agrees with the "socialist principle".

Comparing to the other Latin American Countries The Venezuelan economy is doing good,

No, it really isn't. In most of the region, growth and expansion is predominant, Venezuelan is increasingly faced with infrastructure issues, growth issues and cost issues.

Venezuelans are doing better with Chavez.

Well, at least the Boligarchs are, the lifestyle of the common Venezuelan hasn't changed one whit, except for the omnipresent pro-government posters on every wall...

and Bolivians are doing better with Morales.

There's a substantial difference between Chavez and Morales, one of whom is willing to cooperate with his political and economic opponents to craft policy, and one who is dictatorial, has concentrated all political power in himself, and derides those that disagree with him as traitors.

That really does NOT address his point about "1921 didn't have electricity and in 1945 they had nuclear weapons?The made a step of two centuries in 25 years."

If you're still wiping your ass with leaves, who gives a flying fuck about the fact that the Nomenklatura have lightbulbs and the Politburo has nice Dachas?

The only explanation I can see is a move meant to please his masters in Venezuela.

That is not an "explanation" at all. Venezuela does not even remotely control Ecuador.

it's a simple, obvious fact that the private sector is better at running the economy than the state.

That seems neither simple nor obvious to me.

That really does NOT address his point about "1921 didn't have electricity and in 1945 they had nuclear weapons?The made a step of two centuries in 25 years."
The Soviet Union acquired nuclear weapons in 1949.

Then how you explain the fact that the Soviet economy in 1921 didn't have electricity and in 1945 they had nuclear weapons?The made a step of two centuries in 25 years.And if the rates in a planned economy are falling, why the European Union has a rate of 2,5% when the Soviet Union had for 20 years a rate of 30% per year???

By killing tens of millions of people in a breakneck drive towards industrialization that was propped up by fear and force?

And what happened to the Soviet Union after the killing stopped? It slowed, stagnated, died, and ultimately showed it was utterly incapable of rivaling the capitalist system. And besides, growth rates don't mean very much; if you start out very small to begin with, you're going to have high growth rates. The Soviet economy was ultimately doomed to failure, and the European Union has provided a far better life for its citizens with more freedom and opportunity than has ever existed under a planned economy.

Central planning is a complete and utter failure that has done nothing but bring poverty and devastation to the places it touches.

Central planning is a complete and utter failure that has done nothing but bring poverty and devastation to the places it touches.China

By killing tens of millions of people in a breakneck drive towards industrialization that was propped up by fear and force?

And what happened to the Soviet Union after the killing stopped? It slowed, stagnated, died, and ultimately showed it was utterly incapable of rivaling the capitalist system. And besides, growth rates don't mean very much; if you start out very small to begin with, you're going to have high growth rates. The Soviet economy was ultimately doomed to failure, and the European Union has provided a far better life for its citizens with more freedom and opportunity than has ever existed under a planned economy.

Central planning is a complete and utter failure that has done nothing but bring poverty and devastation to the places it touches.


Not even one of you can understand that difference between planned economy and party dictatorship.Offcourse I don't support the political system of Soviet Union but the fact that planned economy is far more productive was proved by history.A country without even having basic stuff nor knowledge made huge steps and had higher rates than every other market economy ever had.Even Europe after the War had a rate of 8%.

Tell my now,compared to USSR of 1989 and 1922,has any capitalist country made so many steps in economy???From feudalism and natural economy,to industrialize,nuclear weapons in 67 years.I think it took some centuries to Western Europe....

My friend is obvious that you don't live in the European Union...The EU is devasting the social state everywhere,impling neoliberal attacks in every political and social right and turning Europe into a big Guantanamo...If you thing that everything is nice in the EU I inform you that in Greece the last years of a liberal goverment,poverty has risen 25%....

Tell me something else,in liberalism,the profits of the enterprises are more,right?But the rate of the part that the middle and lower class takes is reducing faster than the growth,right?So,why is this good for the majority,if they end with less money in theri pockets?Because we have nice numbers in the end of the year???

Tell me something else,in liberalism,the profits of the enterprises are more,right?But the rate of the part that the middle and lower class takes is reducing faster than the growth,right?So,why is this good for the majority,if they end with less money in theri pockets?Because we have nice numbers in the end of the year???Its not that simple.

There is several factors that can dictate the fortunes of your country's economy, like Wars, insurrections, discovery of oil, the socioeconomic situation of the neighbor countries, discovery of technological breakthroughs/advantages, etc

(Comparing US with Russia) Yes the Central Planning system has flaws (they all have), but that was not the main difference maker.

The big difference maker was US being insulated for the 2 great wars .

Its not that simple.

There is several factors that can dictate the fortunes of your country's economy, like Wars, insurrections, discovery of oil, the socioeconomic situation of the neighbor countries, discovery of technological breakthroughs/advantages, etc

(Comparing US with Russia) Yes the Central Planning system has flaws (they all have), but that was not the main difference maker.

The big difference maker was US being insulated for the 2 great wars .

I agree with you,that's why I am not comparing USSR to USA,US has industrilised economy by the end of 1800,when they had feudalism in Russia.

But I think the most important is that US exploits every aspect of all other countries,especially the back yard,Centran and Latin America,SouthEast Asia.That's why they supported regimes like Pinozzet's,Batista's and other dictators all over the world.

Tell my now,compared to USSR of 1989 and 1922,has any capitalist country made so many steps in economy???From feudalism and natural economy,to industrialize,nuclear weapons in 67 years.I think it took some centuries to Western Europe....

Finland was a part of the Russian Empire when the Soviet Union was founded, so it could be said they developed from the same point. Finland now has one of the best developed economies in the world.

China

There hasn't been large scale central planning in the PRC since Deng came to power, and central planning has played an increasingly less important role ever since then, even.

China

Do you have any idea how poor China was before Deng Xiaopeng made the wise decision to move towards capitalism? It was one of the poorest countries on Earth and was severely underdeveloped in all aspects thanks to Maoist central planning. In fact, the growth of centrally planned economies was among the worst in the world if you take in to account all of the distortions caused by overvalued currencies, imbalances in the allocation of resources, and the cost of military procurement.

Not even one of you can understand that difference between planned economy and party dictatorship.Offcourse I don't support the political system of Soviet Union but the fact that planned economy is far more productive was proved by history.A country without even having basic stuff nor knowledge made huge steps and had higher rates than every other market economy ever had.Even Europe after the War had a rate of 8%.

And what happened to it? It stagnated and collapsed, and when we look in to it the Eastern Bloc was far, far behind the West in terms of economic development and access to basic services. The only reason it grew fast was due to abundant supplies of raw materials; once they could no longer drive growth by consuming more, they stagnated and died.

Outside of the military, their economies were backward and uncompetitive with the rest of the world.

Tell my now,compared to USSR of 1989 and 1922,has any capitalist country made so many steps in economy???From feudalism and natural economy,to industrialize,nuclear weapons in 67 years.I think it took some centuries to Western Europe....

The US did a pretty good job, becoming the world's biggest, strongest economy in only a little more than a century of independence. And its growth was vastly superior compared to the USSR; there were no bread lines in the United States and people could buy a wide variet high-quality goods as opposed to the shoddy, limited junk produced in the USSR. Every single thing the US did it did better than the USSR, except perhaps killing people. And that's hardly something to brag about.

The difference between Europe and the planned economies is that European growth not only lasted, but benefited the people in the economy. Soviet growth was so imbalanced and unequal that it collapsed in on itself. During the Stalinist era, income inequality in the USSR was far, far worse than the worst extremes in capitalist countries of the time.

It took the introduction of capitalist ideas under Khrushchev to reverse that trend, and even he was ultimately stymied by the bureaucracy of the Soviet government.

My friend is obvious that you don't live in the European Union...The EU is devasting the social state everywhere,impling neoliberal attacks in every political and social right and turning Europe into a big Guantanamo...If you thing that everything is nice in the EU I inform you that in Greece the last years of a liberal goverment,poverty has risen 25%....

And? I'd rather have a 25% rise in poverty compared to the equality in poverty that the Soviet Union imposed on its people (except for the uppermost levels of the military and party). The planned economies were a failure, and their people paid the price in blood and suffering.

It took the introduction of capitalist ideas under Khrushchev

"Capitalist"? Really?

Yeah, the Anti-Revisionists have always liked calling them that... but except in the sense that the Soviet Union was always "capitalist", I have never seen much reason to adopt that interpretation.

"Capitalist"? Really?

Yeah, the Anti-Revisionists have always liked calling them that... but except in the sense that the Soviet Union was always "capitalist", I have never seen much reason to adopt that interpretation.

A lot of the ideas put in to place during the 1950's and 1960's were the work of Evsei Liberman, whose ideas were directly based on the business management practices of capitalist firms. The use of profit as a measure of a company's success, the use of price as a way of allocating resources, and emphasis on increased competition between firms were all taken from the capitalist economies of the time.

And they worked, at least for a while; reform stagnated after Khrushchev was removed from office and more than a few of these changes were later reversed in a return to a more Stalinist form of central planning. Had the Soviets not made those reforms, the system would have collapsed far earlier than it did.

A lot of the ideas put in to place during the 1950's and 1960's were the work of Evsei Liberman, whose ideas were directly based on the business management practices of capitalist firms.

I manage a state-owned company. I want to maximize efficiency.

I manage a privately-owned company. I want to maximize efficiency.

Similar problem. Similar methods. Nothing to do with capitalism or socialism.

The use of profit as a measure of a company's success, the use of price as a way of allocating resources, and emphasis on increased competition between firms were all taken from the capitalist economies of the time.

Yes, and these are all more or less market-oriented, but not capitalist.

Especially since democratic political accountability was not available, it makes perfect sense that such reforms improved things. But it does not prove the superiority of private ownership over state ownership, nor even of markets over democratically-directed central planning.

And what happened to it? It stagnated and collapsed, and when we look in to it the Eastern Bloc was far, far behind the West in terms of economic development and access to basic services. The only reason it grew fast was due to abundant supplies of raw materials; once they could no longer drive growth by consuming more, they stagnated and died.

Outside of the military, their economies were backward and uncompetitive with the rest of the world.



The US did a pretty good job, becoming the world's biggest, strongest economy in only a little more than a century of independence. And its growth was vastly superior compared to the USSR; there were no bread lines in the United States and people could buy a wide variet high-quality goods as opposed to the shoddy, limited junk produced in the USSR. Every single thing the US did it did better than the USSR, except perhaps killing people. And that's hardly something to brag about.

The difference between Europe and the planned economies is that European growth not only lasted, but benefited the people in the economy. Soviet growth was so imbalanced and unequal that it collapsed in on itself. During the Stalinist era, income inequality in the USSR was far, far worse than the worst extremes in capitalist countries of the time.

It took the introduction of capitalist ideas under Khrushchev to reverse that trend, and even he was ultimately stymied by the bureaucracy of the Soviet government.



And? I'd rather have a 25% rise in poverty compared to the equality in poverty that the Soviet Union imposed on its people (except for the uppermost levels of the military and party). The planned economies were a failure, and their people paid the price in blood and suffering.


The US was the greater economy because it has a capitalist revolution much earlier than any other country,it overexploit the slaves,all immigrants(as they continue to do),it didn't have war on it's ground like Europe,it didn't made sucrifises in the WW2 like the USSR(20.000.000 people killed during the war),it collected all the Nazis criminals-scientists,it supported every dictatorship in every country their capitalists could gain money by slavery-market,they have a great inequality in incomes,so comparing US to USSR it'like comparing UK to Zambia.

The truth is that the West lives on the back of all planet,that's why the Americans are so pissed off by leaders in Latin American and not that they care about the people and tha't why the West people live better than most planet.

They US didn't kill people???For God's sake,what are you???American,liberal or idiot???Cause those three are the same you know...travel around the world,and see why everyone hates the US.In Greece we had many dictatorships,and they were all supported by the US,like every dictatorship in the world,except the ones with planned economy.

You don't care about poverty?Tell me something,if liberalism is so nice,why the living standard is falling in the EU since the decade of 1980(when liberalism begun attacking) and why poverty is increasing even in Sweden???Your superb theorie doesn't have an explaination????

In 1989 poverty in USSR was 4%.In 2006 was 58%.By the liberal maths 4>58.:D

Vetalia,if liberalism is so good why the economies of Latin America collapsed,revolutions took place and the left is gaining place???

In your beautiful liberal paradise,Latin America,poverty and inequality was beyond limit.And killing people was also beyond limit.I don't consider the regimes of USSR or China like socialists,socialism means democracy implied in economy and a stateless economy but saying that liberalism is better is far away from reality....

Why there is so much poverty since the implification of liberalism in Central and East europe???

Do you have any idea how poor China was before Deng Xiaopeng made the wise decision to move towards capitalism? It was one of the poorest countries on Earth and was severely underdeveloped in all aspects thanks to Maoist central planning. In fact, the growth of centrally planned economies was among the worst in the world if you take in to account all of the distortions caused by overvalued currencies, imbalances in the allocation of resources, and the cost of military procurement.

Do you have any idea who poorer was China before Mao???

Man,are you aware that the wealth of China is concetred in some burrocrats hands and some capitalists while the vast majority is starving or the liberal theory doesn't say that this is bad???

There is a grade which counts the inequality in incomes,0 is perfect socialism,the wealth is equaly shared in the society and 100 is the aim of all capitalists,the wealth is on the hands of one man.Well,China has gone from 40 to 47 only in one year!!!

What's your opinion about it???

Vetalia,if liberalism is so good why the economies of Latin America collapsed,revolutions took place and the left is gaining place???

If socialism is so good, then how come revolutions took place throughout Eastern Europe, and the right is gaining.

The governments of Latin America have rarely been particularly liberal. Largely, military run kleptocracies for much of the Cold War, where government corruption, instability and secret police were the hallmarks of the state. Despotisms propped up for the simple goal of keeping out Soviet influence.

In your beautiful liberal paradise,Latin America,poverty and inequality was beyond limit.And killing people was also beyond limit.I don't consider the regimes of USSR or China like socialists,socialism means democracy implied in economy and a stateless economy but saying that liberalism is better is far away from reality....

Welcome to the hell that is known as the No-true-Scotsman fallacy.

Why there is so much poverty since the implification of liberalism in Central and East europe???

There are a lot of complex reasons, especially related to poor government policy and the transition from Socialism.

Do you have any idea who poorer was China before Mao???

Man,are you aware that the wealth of China is concetred in some burrocrats hands and some capitalists while the vast majority is starving or the liberal theory doesn't say that this is bad???

Nearly 200,000,000 Chinese have been moved out of the devastating poverty that was predominant under Mao. Sure, this is a minority of the population, but it's far better than anything Mao Zedong and his goons were able to do.

Welcome to the hell that is known as the No-true-Scotsman fallacy.

What, definitions?

A socialist shoots someone. I say, "She clearly isn't a socialist, because socialists don't shoot people." Since the concept of "socialist" doesn't preclude shooting people, that's an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

A country implements an economic program and calls it socialist. I say, "Since this economic program does not involve genuine public or worker control, but rather control by a class of bureaucrats and undemocratically-elected politicians, it is not socialist." Now, we can argue about whether my definition is right... but you cannot accuse me of the No True Scotsman fallacy unless you want to pretend that definitions don't matter.

The governments of Latin America have rarely been particularly liberal. Largely, military run kleptocracies for much of the Cold War, where government corruption, instability and secret police were the hallmarks of the state. Despotisms propped up for the simple goal of keeping out Soviet influence.

People keep repeating this myth of Soviet influence in Latin America. And I find myself repeating the following: Soviet intervention in Latin America was negligible compared to US and UK involvement. That was just a smokescreen developed to rationalise intervention on behalf on corporate interests. Those despots were propped up because they were good for business.

Do you have any idea who poorer was China before Mao???

Two wrongs don't make a right. Mao starved millions of people with his Godawful economic and social policies, and destroyed untold amounts of cultural and historical treasures in his idiotic Cultural Revolution. He provided little or no benefit to the nation of China during his entire reign.

That's why Chinese textbooks are starting to marginalize him now; few people seriously believe anymore that he was more than an incompetent and brutal dictator that put his country back decades with misguided policies.

Man,are you aware that the wealth of China is concetred in some burrocrats hands and some capitalists while the vast majority is starving or the liberal theory doesn't say that this is bad???

China's poverty rate has plunged since liberalization and many people have opportunities that never existed before that point. The primary problems are caused by the last remnants of the socialist system more than anything; that's where the worst corruption is and the greatest environmental abuses. It's not in the private firms that have to compete against each other, it's in the protected sectors still heavily controlled by the state.

There is a grade which counts the inequality in incomes,0 is perfect socialism,the wealth is equaly shared in the society and 100 is the aim of all capitalists,the wealth is on the hands of one man.Well,China has gone from 40 to 47 only in one year!!!

What's your opinion about it???

It's the product of their government. Chinese government is so corrupt and centralized that it creates a relationship between business and the state that encourages the exploitation of labor and turns a blind eye to corruption. The end result is income inequality and social problems.

There's nothing wrong with government acting to reduce income inequality. That makes a lot of sense and is wholly compatible with a capitalist economy.

There hasn't been large scale central planning in the PRC since Deng came to power, and central planning has played an increasingly less important role ever since then, even.China economics are still Centrally planed.

I think you took your answer Aundalucia....

Socialism is
1)democratic control and planning of the economy.Control and plan by the workers for the workers.
2)Equal pay for everyone,whether he is head of the state or uneducated worker
3)No police or army,but replaced by citizents force
4)Full democracy,many parties,and all the powers to the councils.

Tell my,did any of these existed in the USSR?No.So,it wasn't socialist.Ok???

What it was?It was a workers state where the means of production where conctreted and nationalised but were under the control of the burrocrats(I am writing it properly???).That's why the revolutions of 1965 and 1956 were for democratic socialism and not for capitalism.The same with the revolutions of the 1989 which were utterly seized by the capitalists.

I think you took your answer Aundalucia....

Socialism is
1)democratic control and planning of the economy.Control and plan by the workers for the workers.
2)Equal pay for everyone,whether he is head of the state or uneducated worker
3)No police or army,but replaced by citizents force
4)Full democracy,many parties,and all the powers to the councils.

Tell my,did any of these existed in the USSR?No.So,it wasn't socialist.Ok???

What it was?It was a workers state where the means of production where conctreted and nationalised but were under the control of the burrocrats(I am writing it properly???).That's why the revolutions of 1965 and 1956 were for democratic socialism and not for capitalism.The same with the revolutions of the 1989 which were utterly seized by the capitalists.

QFT.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Mao starved millions of people with his Godawful economic and social policies, and destroyed untold amounts of cultural and historical treasures in his idiotic Cultural Revolution. He provided little or no benefit to the nation of China during his entire reign.

That's why Chinese textbooks are starting to marginalize him now; few people seriously believe anymore that he was more than an incompetent and brutal dictator that put his country back decades with misguided policies.



China's poverty rate has plunged since liberalization and many people have opportunities that never existed before that point. The primary problems are caused by the last remnants of the socialist system more than anything; that's where the worst corruption is and the greatest environmental abuses. It's not in the private firms that have to compete against each other, it's in the protected sectors still heavily controlled by the state.



It's the product of their government. Chinese government is so corrupt and centralized that it creates a relationship between business and the state that encourages the exploitation of labor and turns a blind eye to corruption. The end result is income inequality and social problems.

There's nothing wrong with government acting to reduce income inequality. That makes a lot of sense and is wholly compatible with a capitalist economy.


I agree that Mao was a bloody dictator and the Cultural Revolution was "bad" but things were even worse before Mao.

Exploitation of labor and turns a blind eye to corruption???Yes,and as we all know,capitalism is against the exploitation of labor....:headbang:

Man you are funny....

Vetalia,if liberalism is so good why the economies of Latin America collapsed,revolutions took place and the left is gaining place???

Because it's a reaction against the corrupt governments that mismanaged their economies in the name of enriching the people in power?

Why is Eastern Europe so staunchly capitalist and blessed with a booming, modern free market economy? They don't want anything to do with socialism because they already know full well that it failed.

[In your beautiful liberal paradise,Latin America,poverty and inequality was beyond limit.And killing people was also beyond limit.I don't consider the regimes of USSR or China like socialists,socialism means democracy implied in economy and a stateless economy but saying that liberalism is better is far away from reality....

Socialism has never existed. Liberalism is the most effective way of opening and developing an economy at this point in time. In the future, capitalism may be surpassed by something else, but for now it is simply the best.

Why there is so much poverty since the implification of liberalism in Central and East europe???

Poverty? Eastern Europe has seen one of the biggest economic booms in its history while still maintaining low income inequality. It has nearly caught up to Western Europe in economic terms and will probably surpass them in a decade thanks to their intelligent management of the economy and much friendlier tax systems.

The difference between Soviet-era Eastern Europe and modern Eastern Europe is as different as night and day. A world of prosperity, freedom and opportunity that never existed under the inept, oppressive rule of the "socialists" is now available to those people.

China economics are still Centrally planed.

Only in the sense of "We are targeting GDP growth of X% per year over the next 5 years". Actual planning of production levels is generally nonexistent and is set by the market.

Because it's a reaction against the corrupt governments that mismanaged their economies in the name of enriching the people in power?

Why is Eastern Europe so staunchly capitalist and blessed with a booming, modern free market economy? They don't want anything to do with socialism because they already know full well that it failed.

[

Socialism has never existed. Liberalism is the most effective way of opening and developing an economy at this point in time. In the future, capitalism may be surpassed by something else, but for now it is simply the best.



Poverty? Eastern Europe has seen one of the biggest economic booms in its history while still maintaining low income inequality. It has nearly caught up to Western Europe in economic terms and will probably surpass them in a decade thanks to their intelligent management of the economy and much friendlier tax systems.

The difference between Soviet-era Eastern Europe and modern Eastern Europe is as different as night and day. A world of prosperity, freedom and opportunity that never existed under the inept, oppressive rule of the "socialists" is now available to those people.



58% of poverty in Eastern Europe.Yeah,liberalism is doing great...:D
When it's going to be bad,when it reaches 100%???

I agree that their is a boom(compared to the West) but it's logic.Many people,overexploited,without unions to protect them,no taxes,no social state,no civil rights,a paradise for capitalists to find new slaves.
Exactly like China.

Economic growth means absolutely nothing if that wealth is concentrated and not distributed equally, growth for the sake of making the rich richer and the poor poorer is no growth at all, its exploitation - it is simply an attempt for the oligarchs to tighten their control on the means of production and disallow genuine worker control. People like Vetalia are just secretly angry that Latin American is moving to a more socialist and democratic mode of production, and really want them to be dominated by US transnational firms.

58% of poverty in Eastern Europe.Yeah,liberalism is doing great...:D

When it's going to be bad,when it reaches 100%???

58% poverty? That number must be very old...poverty in the Ukraine, which has had the hardest transition from the Soviet era, is only 29%. That's still high, but not 58%. In the Baltic states, it is less than 5%, far lower than in other developed countries, including the US and Germany.

They are doing well, their people are prospering, and it is benefiting their society as a result.

I agree that their is a boom(compared to the West) but it's logic.Many people,overexploited,without unions to protect them,no taxes,no social state,no civil rights,a paradise for capitalists to find new slaves.
Exactly like China.

Have you ever seen Eastern Europe or read anything about it? Those countries are beautiful, prosperous, and have pretty good levels of income inequality. The last time they were slaves was under Soviet occupation. Now, they're free and democratic states that offer a good future for their inhabitants.

Economic growth means absolutely nothing if that wealth is concentrated and not distributed equally, growth for the sake of making the rich richer and the poor poorer is no growth at all, its exploitation - it is simply an attempt for the oligarchs to tighten their control on the means of production and disallow genuine worker control. People like Vetalia are just secretly angry that Latin American is moving to a more socialist and democratic mode of production, and really want them to be dominated by US transnational firms.

I am impressed.I totally agree with agree with,except from the part concerning Vetalia.People like Vetalia are either already rich and want to be richer or it's to diffucult to them to see that in their beloved capitalist world 1% of the population holds 50% of the wealth while the 50% of the world is starving.

Economic growth means absolutely nothing if that wealth is concentrated and not distributed equally, growth for the sake of making the rich richer and the poor poorer is no growth at all, its exploitation - it is simply an attempt for the oligarchs to tighten their control on the means of production and disallow genuine worker control. People like Vetalia are just secretly angry that Latin American is moving to a more socialist and democratic mode of production, and really want them to be dominated by US transnational firms.

Wealth should not be distributed equally. Not everyone deserves the same amount for the work they do. It should be distributed in a way that allows people in that society to rise and fall on their own merits. That has nothing to do with equality, just keeping the market competitive.

Fact is, capitalism works and it has won the battle of ideas.

2)Equal pay for everyone,whether he is head of the state or uneducated worker

Marx disagreed, at least with regard to the initial stages of socialist society.

it has won the battle of ideas.

This thread seems to indicate otherwise.

Wealth should not be distributed equally. Not everyone deserves the same amount for the work they do. It should be distributed in a way that allows people in that society to rise and fall on their own merits. That has nothing to do with equality, just keeping the market competitive.

Fact is, capitalism works and it has won the battle of ideas.
Lol I love your childish 'We won!' sillyness, eventually friend democracy and human cooperation will prevail because the economy of capital accumulation is unsustainable for human development.

Wealth should not be distributed equally. Not everyone deserves the same amount for the work they do. It should be distributed in a way that allows people in that society to rise and fall on their own merits. That has nothing to do with equality, just keeping the market competitive.

Fact is, capitalism works and it has won the battle of ideas.

My friend no one said that capitalism doesn't work.That's exactly the problem,it's still making the poor poorrer and the rich richer.Has won the battle of ideas???Really???Ok,say that to a Latin American,I would like to hear his laugh....:D

What about Zapatistas or the Revolution in Oaxaca?They are gained by the ideas of capitalism,right???:D


Hey,Vetalia,I have knews for you....We can have a system where none takes from the other what it produces and their is no poverty,no stress for competiveness and the products are produced not for profit but for the interest of the workers....:D

This thread seems to indicate otherwise.

What? A couple of poor South American countries have embarked on a renewed path of state capitalism that is already faltering and that indicates a threat to the capitalist system?

Nearly 3 billion people have moved towards free-market capitalism in the past two decades. That's almost half of the world's population abandoning socialist or closed economic systems in favor of globalized capitalism. That's a pretty strong sign of one side winning over the other.

What? A couple of poor South American countries have embarked on a renewed path of state capitalism that is already faltering and that indicates a threat to the capitalist system?

Nearly 3 billion people have moved towards free-market capitalism in the past two decades. That's almost half of the world's population abandoning socialist or closed economic systems in favor of globalized capitalism. That's a pretty strong sign of one side winning over the other.

Yes but that one socialist state you refer to as 'poor' has the largest oil tar reserves in the world.

Lol I love your childish 'We won!' sillyness, eventually friend democracy and human cooperation will prevail because the economy of capital accumulation is unsustainable for human development.

Actually, it really isn't. Technology and productivity can increase the steady-state level of economic output without a commensurate increase in raw materials consumption. The result is growth without additional consumption, or at least growth with little additional resource consumption.

Here's a quick illustration.
500 carrying capacity, 5% per year growth in consumption from a base level of 10. It'll be used up in 80 years or so.

At 3%, that rises to 135 years. At 1%, that rises to 400 years. At 0.1%, 4000 years. And that assumes a steady amount of available resources as well as continued dependence on finite raw materials.

Marx disagreed, at least with regard to the initial stages of socialist society.


This is an intersting point.It has to do with the progress of the economy.If we speak for a strong economy we can easily lower the high wages and make higher the lower and the middle wages in terms of some years.

If it's a weak economy,like most economies of the world,we must give motivate to people to work more and produce more.So we will have a(the wage) and b(the social wage) where a<b.b is equal to everyone and a depends on productivity.As much as productivity ameliorates the total wage tends to be equal.

What? A couple of poor South American countries have embarked on a renewed path of state capitalism that is already faltering and that indicates a threat to the capitalist system?

Actually, I was referring to the discussion.

But that works too... strong popular opposition to neoliberalism in the developing countries for which it is supposed to be such a great boon has always been telling.

That's a pretty strong sign of one side winning over the other.

That's not a matter of a "battle of ideas"... guns, for instance, can just as easily accomplish such a thing.

Anyway, "capitalism has won the battle of ideas" makes no reference to the specific opponents it beat. Since your post was about equal distribution, you would have to argue that free-market capitalism somehow beat systems advancing economic equality... which obviously excludes both China and the Soviet Union.

Yes but that one socialist state you refer to as 'poor' has the largest oil tar reserves in the world.

And they aren't producing them. Why? Because all the skilled personnel needed to develop them and the investment funds to build the infrastructure are being driven out by the policies of the government.

Venezuela's oil industry is so mismanaged that it is actually shrinking and output is falling despite those reserves.

Actual planning of production levels is generally nonexistent and is set by the market.production levels are moving targets. they change all the time. Capitalist or Socialist.

Actual planning ... is generally nonexistent and is set by the market.So thats why the free market sets the value of the Yuan.
and..
thats why the free market sets the interest rates.
exchange rates, land value, distribution of energy, Natural Resources, etc etc etc..

And they aren't producing them. Why? Because all the skilled personnel needed to develop them and the investment funds to build the infrastructure are being driven out by the policies of the government.

Venezuela's oil industry is so mismanaged that it is actually shrinking and output is falling despite those reserves.

Actually they are on track to provide China with over 15% of their oil needs by 2010, my point was that our comrade Chavez can use his oil to bleed the capitalists pockets as peak oil becomes reality and beyond, and in so doing bring about the radical socialization of Latin America that is already happening.

production levels are moving targets. they change all the time. Capitalist or Socialist.

Not in a planned economy. In a planned economy, every aspect of production is set for the year, independent of demand or price. That's what created the shortages during the Soviet era; every factory was told to produce X quantity of products during the year in X sizes or forms, and they were to deliver them for a set price.

So thats why the free market sets the value of the Yen.
and..

It does. The Yen is freely traded. The Yuan is not; it is still pegged to the dollar and limited in its trading band. However, the negative effects are already clear; a gigantic trade surplus that is fueling the country's economic growth and pushing it towards overheating.

thats why the free market sets the interest rates.
exchange rates, land value, distribution of energy, Natural Resources, etc etc etc..

It sets all of those in some capacity. The Chinese government still holds controlling interest in those sectors, and sets a standard interest rate for dealing with central banks and for bonds, but all of them have some market involvement.

58% poverty? That number must be very old...poverty in the Ukraine, which has had the hardest transition from the Soviet era, is only 29%. That's still high, but not 58%. In the Baltic states, it is less than 5%, far lower than in other developed countries, including the US and Germany.

They are doing well, their people are prospering, and it is benefiting their society as a result.



Have you ever seen Eastern Europe or read anything about it? Those countries are beautiful, prosperous, and have pretty good levels of income inequality. The last time they were slaves was under Soviet occupation. Now, they're free and democratic states that offer a good future for their inhabitants.


Like Russia,Poland,(where the prisoners are going to build the stadiums for 2008),Hungary,Belarussia,yeah,yeah,very democratic countries....you are free to choose between the right and the far-right parties....

I told you once again that I am anistalinist too,and that I have comrades killed in the USSR for defending democratic sosialism against stalinism.All this "democratic capitalists" were the best servants of the burrocrats and were praying to "Uncle Stalin" so don't even think to speak to me about democracy....

Actually the Chinese are notorious for manipulating the value of their currency.

Like Russia,Poland,(where the prisoners are going to build the stadiums for 2008),Hungary,Belarussia,yeah,yeah,very democratic countries....you are free to choose between the right and the far-right parties....

Belarus is an old-school quasi-Soviet economy. Russia isn't part of Eastern Europe, and Hungary and Poland are doing very well.

I told you once again that I am anistalinist too,and that I have comrades killed in the USSR for defending democratic sosialism against stalinism.All this "democratic capitalists" were the best servants of the burrocrats and were praying to "Uncle Stalin" so don't even think to speak to me about democracy....

Then you should know what the Soviet system did to those countries. It was not just, it was not equitable, and it was soaked with blood and exploitation.

Belarus is an old-school quasi-Soviet economy. Russia isn't part of Eastern Europe, and Hungary and Poland are doing very well.



Then you should know what the Soviet system did to those countries. It was not just, it was not equitable, and it was soaked with blood and exploitation.

That's why I already said many times that I am not defending the Soviet System,Stalinism,but democratic socialism and planned economy.

As for Venezuela,I totally disagree with the way oil is controled.It's controlled by some burrocrats where it should be sontrol by councils of the workers who could hire(with the same wage as the workers offcourse) managers to advise them in controlling the oil industry.But the hall control has to be in the hands of the workers,not in the hands of the geverment.


Although it's better to produce 5 and disturbute it to the people,instead of producing 10 and giving it to some capitalist scumbags.

Actually they are on track to provide China with over 15% of their oil needs by 2010...
Source?

I think Spyro means "bureaucrat." Burrocracy is rule by donkeys.

People keep repeating this myth of Soviet influence in Latin America. And I find myself repeating the following: Soviet intervention in Latin America was negligible compared to US and UK involvement. That was just a smokescreen developed to rationalise intervention on behalf on corporate interests. Those despots were propped up because they were good for business.

You clearly didn't read my post, then, did you? What I said is these banana republics were kept running to prevent Soviet influence. Was there actually Soviet influence? That's debatable, but the goal of the policies that were implemented revolved around such. The lessons of 1962 were learned quite well by the United States, too well, I might say.

You clearly didn't read my post, then, did you? What I said is these banana republics were kept running to prevent Soviet influence. Was there actually Soviet influence? That's debatable, but the goal of the policies that were implemented revolved around such. The lessons of 1962 were learned quite well by the United States, too well, I might say.

Soviet influence was limited because they more or less respected it as our sphere of influence, sort of like how central Asia and a good chunk of Africa were their sphere. We didn't intervene very heavily in most of their banana republics, and they did the same.

Soviet influence was limited because they more or less respected it as our sphere of influence, sort of like how central Asia and a good chunk of Africa were their sphere. We didn't intervene very heavily in most of their banana republics, and they did the same.

Quite. It was a game, a game with rules.

I think you took your answer Aundalucia....

Socialism is
1)democratic control and planning of the economy.Control and plan by the workers for the workers.
2)Equal pay for everyone,whether he is head of the state or uneducated worker
3)No police or army,but replaced by citizents force
4)Full democracy,many parties,and all the powers to the councils.

I can play this game too!

Liberalism is...
1.) Predicated on the concept of democratic pluralism, and a government organized around such.
2.) Respect for human rights.
3.) A free and open market, without artificial barriers to market entry.
4.) Constitutionalism.

Tell me, did any of these exist in the Latin American despotisms? No, so, it wasn't liberal, OK?

What were they? Corrupt, military kleptocracies, centered around the centralization of power in the hands of a few military officers and traditional feudal elites.


What it was?It was a workers state where the means of production where conctreted and nationalised but were under the control of the burrocrats(I am writing it properly???).That's why the revolutions of 1965 and 1956 were for democratic socialism and not for capitalism.The same with the revolutions of the 1989 which were utterly seized by the capitalists.

The revolutions of 1989 actually were for democracy in general, not necessarily socialist democracy. Importantly, though, they were also for allowing the people to enter the consumer culture that the US and the Western Europeans had so successfully built after the destruction of World War II.

I can play this game too!

Liberalism is...
1.) Predicated on the concept of democratic pluralism, and a government organized around such.
2.) Respect for human rights.
3.) A free and open market, without artificial barriers to market entry.
4.) Constitutionalism.

Tell me, did any of these exist in the Latin American despotisms? No, so, it wasn't liberal, OK?

What were they? Corrupt, military kleptocracies, centered around the centralization of power in the hands of a few military officers and traditional feudal elites.




The revolutions of 1989 actually were for democracy in general, not necessarily socialist democracy. Importantly, though, they were also for allowing the people to enter the consumer culture that the US and the Western Europeans had so successfully built after the destruction of World War II.

The only true democracy is communism, in capitalism power (economic and political) is controlled by a minority elite, while in communism power is held equally.

The only true democracy is communism, in capitalism power (economic and political) is controlled by a minority elite, while in communism power is held equally.

I would fundamentally disagree with so dogmatic and narrowminded a statement.

I would fundamentally disagree with so dogmatic and narrowminded a statement.

That is because you buy into the liberal capitalist lies which are ultimately disguises for concealing their aim, oligarchic control over the means of production. Democracy is majority rule and popular power at it's most literal level, universal suffrage at a purely symbolic level is political equality through 1 person, 1 vote, this must extended from limited mandate to direct equal power, in both political and economic spheres, democracy is popular power - and any attempts to dilute it's meaning from absolute equality is an attempt to dis empower communism and the people in favor of oligarchic capitalist elites to enslave the masses for they're own wealth. So now we know why you disagree with the statement, you would prefer a democracy in which the popular control was superficial and in reality non-existent, when rich elites controlled the economy and thus the political process, putting and keeping those in power to keep their stranglehold over the means of production, and a constitution to protect property (rich peoples rights). You are either in favor of total communistic democracy or you are for allowed minority control, one or the other.

The only true democracy is communism, in capitalism power (economic and political) is controlled by a minority elite, while in communism power is held equally.

Communism as it was in the old Soviet Union was run by a bureaucratic caste. Hardly a true Democracy.

Communism as it was in the old Soviet Union was run by a bureaucratic caste. Hardly a true Democracy.
Did I even mention any revisionist capitalist states like the SU, I am talking about the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, an anarchistic radical decentralized society founded on absolute worker control over production.

That is because you buy into the liberal capitalist lies which are ultimately disguises for concealing their aim, oligarchic control over the means of production. Democracy is majority rule and popular power at it's most literal level, universal suffrage at a purely symbolic level is political equality through 1 person, 1 vote, this must extended from limited mandate to direct equal power, in both political and economic spheres, democracy is popular power - and any attempts to dilute it's meaning from absolute equality is an attempt to dis empower communism and the people in favor of oligarchic capitalist elites to enslave the masses for they're own wealth. So now we know why you disagree with the statement, you would prefer a democracy in which the popular control was superficial and in reality non-existent, when rich elites controlled the economy and thus the political process, putting and keeping those in power to keep their stranglehold over the means of production, and a constitution to protect property (rich peoples rights). You are either in favor of total communistic democracy or you are for allowed minority control, one or the other.

Once again, I feel you are entirely dogmatic and narrowminded in your beliefs and opinions, as well as quite deluded as to the mechanisms by which liberal capitalism functions.

Democracy is not all or nothing, economic and political life is not unified, and communism is not the universal goal of even so much as a large minority of humanity. There is no unified oppressed proletariat, there is no unified all-powerful bourgeoisie, it's all a myth created by hucksters and panderers.

Did I even mention any revisionist capitalist states like the SU, I am talking about the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, an anarchistic radical decentralized society founded on absolute worker control over production.

And starvation, death, chaos and suffering too! Yippee!

Did I even mention any revisionist capitalist states like the SU, I am talking about the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, an anarchistic radical decentralized society founded on absolute worker control over production.

Could True Communism ever work? I suppose if you take power grabbing humans out of the equation.