NationStates Jolt Archive

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says capitalist systems are on the verge of collapse and can no longer bring economic development.

"There are some who believe we can improve the economic situation with the formulas that are prescribed by the West; they must know that capitalist systems are falling apart," said Ahmadinejad, who was addressing clerics in Iran's western city of Hamadan on Thursday.

"The fundamental philosophy of Iran's Islamic Revolution was that it should not be based on Western systems," he continued.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=52977&sectionid=351020101

My guess is either:
a) Cuddling up to Chavez for oil interest reasons.
b) Islamic Labour Party of Iran just won a bunch of seats in parliament.
c) trying to appeal to latent anti-US leftist sentiment.

Either way, I don't buy a word of what that reactionary theocrat says.

For once, we are in agreement.

I'm of the opinion that Ahmadinejad is in dire need of psychiatric assistance, and the ayatollahs keep him around for their own amusement.

My guess is either:
a) Cuddling up to Chavez for oil interest reasons.
b) Islamic Labour Party of Iran just won a bunch of seats in parliament.
c) trying to appeal to latent anti-US leftist sentiment.

Either way, I don't buy a word of what that reactionary theocrat says.
You, in particular, must admit what he says is not entirely without basis, even if he's only saying it to stay in control.

"Capitalism didn't win, it's just the only thing we're left with"

It has always been, in one form or another, the only working system. Humans are neither social not ethic enough for any other system to work properly yet.

"Capitalism didn't win, it's just the only thing we're left with"

It has always been, in one form or another, the only working system. Humans are neither social not ethic enough for any other system to work properly yet.
Socialism, as in planned economy, has yet to fail in any way in the world. Examples such as the Soviet Union are invalid because Soviet planned economy was effectively destroyed in the USSR during the 60's and 70's by Khrushchev and his successors. Planned economies have been dismantled by reactionary political forces, nothing more.

For an analysis of capitalism in the Soviet Union, I would encourage a read of this: http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html

Either way, I don't buy a word of what that reactionary theocrat says.

I don't know about that. I usually find the word of a reactionary theocrat to be fairly trusted. Especially the ones who are insane too!

Socialism, as in planned economy, has yet to fail in any way in the world. Examples such as the Soviet Union are invalid because Soviet planned economy was effectively destroyed in the USSR during the 60's and 70's by Khrushchev and his successors. Planned economies have been dismantled by reactionary political forces, nothing more.

Some may call their inability to prevent being dismantled by those reactionary forces a failure attributable to the socialist systems themselves.

As for global capitalism on the verge of collapse, does he know something that isn't apparent to the rest of the planet?

Some may call their inability to prevent being dismantled by those reactionary forces a failure attributable to the socialist systems themselves.
Political systems perhaps, but alot of it goes to the rather unique and ad hoc way socialism developed in the 19th century, all of the countries who implemented did so without a substantive capitalist interlude of development between feudalism and socialism, which may go to explaining the rather unstable development they had - as well as explaining some of the seemingly contradictory economic policies such as the NEP, especially in Russia and China where the revolution happened through the peasants and building the proletariat was a post-revolutionary exercise. Both Russia and China had little actual working classes at the time, which is why in part Leninism and Maoism developed - mostly as a response to those unique conditions those countries had in regard to the revolutionary peasants.

As for global capitalism on the verge of collapse, does he know something that isn't apparent to the rest of the planet?
Unless Ahmadinejad recently decided to read Das Kapital and has had a change of heart, I'd say he's being an opportunist.

Also, for the record, economic systems do not 'collapse', they can decay, but it requires someone to crush the political orders which props them for them to truly be overthrown. Recall the history of England in the seventeenth century. Did not many say that the old social system had decayed? But did it not, nevertheless, require a Cromwell to crush it by force? Same goes for French Revolution and feudalism.

Socialism, as in planned economy, has yet to fail in any way in the world. Examples such as the Soviet Union are invalid because Soviet planned economy was effectively destroyed in the USSR during the 60's and 70's by Khrushchev and his successors. Planned economies have been dismantled by reactionary political forces, nothing more.
I'm not so sure whether "reactionary political forces" can be dismissed so easily. The fact of the matter is, no matter how efficient or productive a system, if you can't persuade people that it's correct then there's something missing. This might simply be the problem of a pre-existing social culture of self-ambition, it might be disillusionment with central power, it might be a bad reputation that the system has earned as a result of previous detractors or mistakes, but for whatever reason, you can't just pass off "Oh, well people don't like it" as a factor to be ignored.

Socialism may not itself have failed, but many of its proponents and experiments have. It is important to acknowledge and constructively deal with that rather than just hide behind the nature of Socialism as a fundamentally good idea.

Socialism, as in planned economy, has yet to fail in any way in the world. Examples such as the Soviet Union are invalid because Soviet planned economy was effectively destroyed in the USSR during the 60's and 70's by Khrushchev and his successors. Planned economies have been dismantled by reactionary political forces, nothing more.

For an analysis of capitalism in the Soviet Union, I would encourage a read of this: http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html

Which is exactly why they fail. They are open to abuse and exploitation everywhere, as well as too inflexible and nowhere near responsive enough.

Political systems perhaps, but alot of it goes to the rather unique and ad hoc way socialism developed in the 19th century, all of the countries who implemented did so without a substantive capitalist interlude of development between feudalism and socialism, which may go to explaining the rather unstable development they had - as well as explaining some of the seemingly contradictory economic policies such as the NEP, especially in Russia and China where the revolution happened through the peasants and building the proletariat was a post-revolutionary exercise. Both Russia and China had little actual working classes at the time, which is why in part Leninism and Maoism developed - mostly as a response to those unique conditions those countries had in regard to the revolutionary peasants.

Well, Eastern Germany, Poland, Checoslovakia, Hungary et all certainly did have a large working class by the time they became socialist. So that excuse is, if you'll excuse the term, bollocks.

Socialism may not itself have failed, but many of its proponents and experiments have. It is important to acknowledge and constructively deal with that rather than just hide behind the nature of Socialism as a fundamentally good idea.

Oh, it is a good idea. Definitely. It's just that in its pure form, it's impractical, due to human nature.
It does continue to exist and work in countries that have adapted a middle ground on economics, offering a free market and at the same time a strong public involvement and welfare.

Well, Eastern Germany, Poland, Checoslovakia, Hungary et all certainly did have a large working class by the time they became socialist. So that excuse is, if you'll excuse the term, bollocks.
It's not an 'excuse', it's simply an explanation of the development of economic and social systems in the last century. Capitalism in large part was only developed in a rudimentary and crude way even in the most industrial countries of the 19th century, that is because feudalism still existed in large parts throughout those countries and many others, uneven development is also an issue to consider, and also the fact that

Although certainly the socialism of the October Revolution and post-WWII formation was salvageable through certain economic measures, for the large part the advent of modern revisionism, manifesting in both political and economic wrecking - spoiled alot of it.

You're problem and the problem of many others is a tendency to see history too succinctly, for example feudalism itself decayed for many years before political will caught up and eventually the bourgeois was able to dismantle it piece by piece, but indeed many aspects of feudalism remained decades after it was thought to have been replaced.

Indeed class relations today have ripened, and although the socialism of the 19th century was immature and unstable - I tend to view it in such a historical economical way. To dismiss it such as 'failed' on your part shows a great crude political opportunism.

It's not an 'excuse', it's simply an explanation of the development of economic and social systems in the last century. Capitalism in large part was only developed in a rudimentary and crude way even in the most industrial countries of the 19th century, that is because feudalism still existed in large parts throughout those countries and many others, uneven development is also an issue to consider, and also the fact that

Although certainly the socialism of the October Revolution and post-WWII formation was salvageable through certain economic measures, for the large part the advent of modern revisionism, manifesting in both political and economic wrecking - spoiled alot of it.

You're problem and the problem of many others is a tendency to see history too succinctly, for example feudalism itself decayed for many years before political will caught up and eventually the bourgeois was able to dismantle it piece by piece, but indeed many aspects of feudalism remained decades after it was thought to have been replaced.

Indeed class relations today have ripened, and although the socialism of the 19th century was immature and unstable - I tend to view it in such a historical economical way. To dismiss it such as 'failed' on your part shows a great crude political opportunism.


Let's take another look at Eastern Germany, then, shall we? Feudalism here had ended well before the 19th century. Capitalism had been well established by the middle of the 19th century in fact. And along with it came its social problems, which had been damed in by Bismark in the 1870 already. Eastern German society then moved on from its socialised form of capitalism to national socialism to "really existing" socialism. That's where it remained for 40 years, before it came tumbling down again.

And it did not come down for any abstract ideas, it came down because the socialist system that had been set up and defended with force had exhausted itself, and had been exploited by opportunists to the point of collapse. It collapsed because the people were fed up with their "animal farm" lives, and it collapsed because the possibility of a less regulated life in the West appealed to too many.

There is no way of talking around the fact that socialism in this country failed, utterly and totally. And it didn't fail because the idea is flawed, it failed because humans are not social and ethical enough to make such a system work in real life.

Oh, it is a good idea. Definitely. It's just that in its pure form, it's impractical, due to human nature.
It does continue to exist and work in countries that have adapted a middle ground on economics, offering a free market and at the same time a strong public involvement and welfare.
I'm not so sure about the "human nature" argument at the minute. I mean, okay, people have an innate self-preservation instinct that will always be at odds with the interests of other people. But why is satisfying this instinct such a problem?

The thing is, Socialism does not need to be "From each according to their ability to each according to their need". Lodged within this is the sentiment that people should be contributing their all to the state. This is an abuse of resources, not only because people need to keep some for themselves but also because what people as a whole have the ability to do far surpasses what people will need, and all you'll end up with is stockpiling, or the creation of arbitrary resource sinks simply to keep things from going to waste. I think the sentiment should be changed to "From each according to the needs of the whole" - the idea that all the state asks from you is enough to keep everyone going, and in return it'll keep you going.

What in that is at odds with human nature? I don't know about you, but that seems perfectly in tune with mine. A modern state with the appropriate technology could easily meet its citizen's requirements for food, water, medicine and healthcare, housing, clothing, energy and education on a long-term basis with a fraction of the huge manpower that we currently invest in our commercial culture. If people could secure this sort of state support, they would be more than happy to do some formal work for a few hours a week, I'm sure of that.

I'm not so sure about the "human nature" argument at the minute. I mean, okay, people have an innate self-preservation instinct that will always be at odds with the interests of other people. But why is satisfying this instinct such a problem?

The thing is, Socialism does not need to be "From each according to their ability to each according to their need". Lodged within this is the sentiment that people should be contributing their all to the state. This is an abuse of resources, not only because people need to keep some for themselves but also because what people as a whole have the ability to do far surpasses what people will need, and all you'll end up with is stockpiling, or the creation of arbitrary resource sinks simply to keep things from going to waste. I think the sentiment should be changed to "From each according to the needs of the whole" - the idea that all the state asks from you is enough to keep everyone going, and in return it'll keep you going.

What in that is at odds with human nature? I don't know about you, but that seems perfectly in tune with mine. A modern state with the appropriate technology could easily meet its citizen's requirements for food, water, medicine and healthcare, housing, clothing, energy and education on a long-term basis with a fraction of the huge manpower that we currently invest in our commercial culture. If people could secure this sort of state support, they would be more than happy to do some formal work for a few hours a week, I'm sure of that.

It's not so much the self-preservation instict, as more the inate laziness in most people. Most people tend to do as little as they can get away with and still maintain their standart of living. They are social enough to work together, realising the benefits for all that can be achieved.

Capitalism works because extra effort will get extra reward, in a very real and monetary sense. I socialism, this incentive for extra work falls away, it is assumed that people will understand the need for extra effort and therefore volunteer their time and energy. And it's this assumption about human nature that is just at odds with reality.

Furthermore, in a society where extra effort can be demanded without recompensation, you'll soon find some less scrupulous individuals piling their work on others, while taking the benefits. Animal Farm is a very keen observation of this process.

You'l find that most of those states I've been talking about that went for a socialist form of capitalism, actually do provide health care, medicine, education and more to their citizens. They just also hold open the incentive of reward for work.

Socialism, as in planned economy, has yet to fail in any way in the world. Examples such as the Soviet Union are invalid because Soviet planned economy was effectively destroyed in the USSR during the 60's and 70's by Khrushchev and his successors. Planned economies have been dismantled by reactionary political forces, nothing more.

For an analysis of capitalism in the Soviet Union, I would encourage a read of this: http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.htmlAhahaha! Reality begs to differ.

Indeed class relations today have ripened, and although the socialism of the 19th century was immature and unstable - I tend to view it in such a historical economical way. To dismiss it such as 'failed' on your part shows a great crude political opportunism.Planned economies fail for the simple reason that people's desires are so damn hard to predict. In a free market, there's enough different offers for at least one of them to get it right whenever a prediction is necessary. In a planned economy, you don't have any competition to the official plan, so not only will everyone get it wrong when consumption is improperly predicted, there is no incentive for providing a better product either.

Socialism- as defined
Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.

Has almost always failed. the free loader problem coupled with basic human greed.

to even maintain a socialist system you must out law the opposition because people start wanting the laws changed when it dictates what they must do with their property.

For once, we are in agreement.

Kind of weirds you out, doesn't it?

Socialism, as in planned economy, has yet to fail in any way in the world. Examples such as the Soviet Union are invalid because

...because they completely contradict your hair-brained Stalinist rants.

opportunism

What in that is at odds with human nature?
I don't know about you, but that seems perfectly in tune with mine.

Only if you assume that 'your nature' corresponds in every way with 'human nature', is that sentiment correct. Once you account for individualism though,(something that centrally planned/state controlled systems tend to forget as well) it becomes false

If people could secure this sort of state support, they would be more than happy to do some formal work for a few hours a week, I'm sure of that.

Again, that's a hell of an assumption to make for humanity at large.

My guess is either:
a) Cuddling up to Chavez for oil interest reasons.
b) Islamic Labour Party of Iran just won a bunch of seats in parliament.
c) trying to appeal to latent anti-US leftist sentiment.

Either way, I don't buy a word of what that reactionary theocrat says.

Or, maybe he genuinely doesn't like capitalism. It's not as if capitalism and communism are the only options, and if Ahmane...Ahmanenej...the president of Iran is as reactionary as I think he is, he probably favors a pre-capitalist economy.

You know, one could argue that the Soviet Union and other socialist nations failed due to corruption. It is clear to me that their leaders did not follow the principles of socialism - they used their power to better their own lives. Anyone who reads about Soviet society knows that the Party members were basically nobility. That isn't socialism. That's aristocracy. Socialism creates a classless society. The Soviet Union was more stratified than the United States.

I'll justify that statement. In the Soviet Union, social mobility was extremely difficult. It was possible to rise from poor origins to enter the elite (the Party) but there was a definite point where you crossed a line. The Soviet Union had three classes, which I'm just going to borrow from Orwell: The Inner Party (Pulitburo and other top-rankers), the Outer Party (all other party members), and the proletariat (non-members). Andaras, if I've inaccurately described the Soviet system, correct me.

The United States, on the other hand, defined social status by wealth. First of all, this blurred the lines a lot, as you can have any level of wealth. Second, this allows for some social mobility. It is possible to move upwards through hard work, merit, or sheer dumb luck. My parents are an example of the first case - they moved from relatively poor backgrounds to the upper-middle class by working their asses off in the software industry. An inventor or entrepeneur who creates the Next Big Thing is an example of the second case. And the poor farmer who discovers oil on his land is an example of the third case. On the flip side, it is possible for someone rich to fall - invest in the wrong stock, and you can lose everything. Or get caught by the feds doing something illegal.

The best known case of pure socialism - the Israeli kibbutzim - can be considered a partial success. The kibbutzim flourished during much of the 20th century. The only problem was that Israel as a whole was capitalist (though for a while, the Socialists were in charge of the government). This is the probable reason for their eventual decline - though they're still around.

I have no issues with socialism, personally. It's very difficult to get it right, and the many failed attempts at socialism have caused untold suffering. But if we could do it right, it should work.

Wait a minute, the guy who has not only managed to drive Iran's economy in to the ground in the past seven years but has consistently failed to leverage record high oil prices to develop its moribund and backward economy...

...is claiming capitalism doesn't work? At the same time China and India are growing 9-10% per year and the world economy has seen its strongest period of growth since the 1960's?