NationStates Jolt Archive

I just got this issue:



A Capital Idea

The Issue
A crowd of penniless ex-businessmen have amassed in Ekathora's capital city, demanding that the government return all the nationalised industry to private control.

The Debate
"GREED IS GOOD!" bellows Steffan Wall, a famous advocate of capitalism. "The economy is stagnating terribly under government control. Complete privatisation is the only option here. It's time to give power back to the people! Well, rich people, anyway..."
[Accept]


"This it outrageous!" cries armchair revolutionary, Naki Gutenberg. "The government must maintain the principles of equality and socialism that we fought so hard for, and not sell the country to corrupt and greedy corporations. We must eject these shameful capitalists from our great nation at once!"
[Accept]


"Hey, aren't we all being a little extreme about this?" says noted economist, Bill Wall. "Surely we could just keep the key industries, such as the electricity and water supplies, under government control and lessen the regulations on the others so they could function more independently? That way, the people can't complain that they are at the mercy of big business, and industries such as retail can function more effectively."
[Accept]



I am a dedicated Democratic Socialist, but I dont want my economy to bomb for going socialist on this issue... I will make the sacrifice if that is what needs to happen for my ideals, but still I was just wondering what others thought of this before I decided on the outcome... I wouldnt mind taking option 3 but I am just wondering (with the obvious Bias of NS) will it harm my economy horribly?

You can only get that issue if you are already socialist. I've had that one; option three makes your economy go up, not down, but only by a little bit. That's probably the best one if you want to be socialist with a good economy.

option three makes your economy go up, not down, but only by a little bit. That's probably the best one if you want to be socialist with a good economy.

THANK YOU!!! :)

Thats just what I needed to know, I appreciate it alot :)

I'd go for option one. Being a capitalist doesn't make one greedy. After all China is going to capitalism and a billion + of them can't be wrong.

I'd go for option one. Being a capitalist doesn't make one greedy. After all China is going to capitalism and a billion + of them can't be wrong.

See, the problem here is that I am adamantly against Capitalism. I know that capitalism doesn't MAKE anyone greedy, it just makes greed much more profitable and easy... :( And really, China is communist, theres the difference between communism and socialism... :D I thank you for the help tho, I mean, I do believe that (due to NS obvious bias) by going with Option Number 1 would give me a better economy, I am MUCH more interested in creating an effective socialist state here on NS. Ekathora is my little love child for my political psyche... WOW! I am blabbing... sorry... I am on campus with nothing better to be doing until my next class at 1:30 and was just wasting time with the NS forum... if you got this far in reading this post CONGRATULATIONS and thank you for doing so. But yes, thanks for the advice everyone I appreciate it entirely. ;) :D

I'd go for option one. Being a capitalist doesn't make one greedy. After all China is going to capitalism and a billion + of them can't be wrong.


A billion flies can't be wrong, sh** tastes great!

A billion flies can't be wrong, sh** tastes great!

LMAO! :p ;)

A billion flies can't be wrong, sh** tastes great!

I'm sorry but that is a racist comment if i ever heard one. Watch it before someone reports you to the mods.

China is communist

China is "communist", talk to a real communist and they'll laugh at china being called a communist country

China is "communist", talk to a real communist and they'll laugh at china being called a communist country

Very true, and I have many communist friends actually. ;)

I'm sorry but that is a racist comment if i ever heard one. Watch it before someone reports you to the mods.
How was that racist? Tremali was just pointing out the logical flaw of saying "All these people agree, so it must be true!".

How was that racist? Tremali was just pointing out the logical flaw of saying "All these people agree, so it must be true!".

Agreed.

I'm sorry but that is a racist comment if i ever heard one. Watch it before someone reports you to the mods.

I'm sorry but that is an inverse racist comment if I ever heard one...

[/irony]

...just a slight point. :)

Back on-topic!

My nation is supposed to be socio-capitalist. Recently, I managed to get a small private sector. However, it refuses to grow. Blasted thing - no matter how many times I go pro-business on issues.

I suspect one day I'll log in and have a purebred capitalist economy and be left scratching my head wondering where all the socialists went...

I'm sorry but that is a racist comment if i ever heard one. Watch it before someone reports you to the mods.That is most decidedly not racist. Sheej.

I'd hesitate not a single second to take the second option, clearly the best! :D http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

Also, I've noticed that NS is terribly biased over nations where private industry is illegal so that those can't have a good economy :mad:

Also, I've noticed that NS is terribly biased over nations where private industry is illegal so that those can't have a good economy :mad:
Not true. My nation had outlawed private industry for a long time, but nonetheless had a "frightening" economy (the strongest). The key was the black market. You see, while private industry had been outlawed, my national ruler was perfectly willing to look the other way in exchange for massive bribes from private businessmen. It was a kind of unofficial replacement for taxes.

:p

Not true. My nation had outlawed private industry for a long time, but nonetheless had a "frightening" economy (the strongest). The key was the black market. You see, while private industry had been outlawed, my national ruler was perfectly willing to look the other way in exchange for massive bribes from private businessmen. It was a kind of unofficial replacement for taxes.

:p

Can you give me a list of issues and the options that you should pick to get this way? (off the top of your head at least?) :D It would be greatly appreciated. ;)

Can you give me a list of issues and the options that you should pick to get this way? (off the top of your head at least?) :D It would be greatly appreciated. ;)
Likewise.

But still, is there no clean possibility to get a good economy otherwise? :rolleyes:

Also, "Frightening" rather sounds as if it's the worst, rather than the best :confused:

Likewise.

But still, is there no clean possibility to get a good economy otherwise? :rolleyes:

Also, "Frightening" rather sounds as if it's the worst, rather than the best :confused:

Frightening is so ginormous that it's... well.. frightening cause the GDP is so high.

Can you give me a list of issues and the options that you should pick to get this way? (off the top of your head at least?) :D It would be greatly appreciated. ;)
Oh god, it took a long time. I think first of all I built up my economy to "Frightening" (which is, indeed, the strongest - as in "frighteningly strong" - blame Max, not me!) by heavily subsidizing industry every chance I got. At the same time, I took every chance to get more corrupt - I took bribes, I eliminated elections, and generally was just a bad person. (I am "Dishonorable Scum", after all - I was just trying to live up to the name!) At some point, I got an issue that allowed me to abolish all private industry and have it all owned and run by the government, so I took it. At that point, my national description said something to the effect that private industry was illegal, but there was a flourishing black market in Uranium Mining. It also said that I had strong anti-business policies, but that the government was run by a small group of pro-business individuals. In other words, my government was totally schizophrenic.

That was a while ago; I've been on NationStates off and on for several years now. I did a lot of this during my first period on NationStates, and then I left for a couple of years and only recently came back. So I don't recall exactly what sequence of events I had - above is the best I can reconstruct it from memory. When I came back, I decided to allow private industry again, just to see what would happen. I may re-nationalize it at some point, because it was kind of fun to have a nation whose economic policies made absolutely no sense at all.

:p

China is "communist", talk to a real communist and they'll laugh at china being called a communist country

Aye, China has seemed to forgot all about the withering away of the state, self-management, and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

To call China communist is to prove that you're a fool and know nothing of Marxist and Proudhonian theory.

I'd hesitate not a single second to take the second option, clearly the best! :D http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

Also, I've noticed that NS is terribly biased over nations where private industry is illegal so that those can't have a good economy :mad:

Actually, it's the WORLD that's biased, because that's how the world works. Government is terribly inefficient, and government control over business just makes business ineffecient. It's impossible to have a healthy business sector when government is controlling it, sorry guys...

I think the trick to having a socialist economy at Frightening is probably to have a nation start out capitalist and then shift to socialism. Ma-tek began capitalist, at Frightening, and then transitioned to socialism, without any dip. Whereas Ma-Nenya began as socialist, at 'Basket-case' or something like, and is now 'Imploded'. Bugger.

So. I guess it was at least possible with the old issues (pre- user-submissions), at least, but there are a helluva lot more than there are now, so it'd be a bit tougher to get the right ones, I suppose.

I think the trick to having a socialist economy at Frightening is probably to have a nation start out capitalist and then shift to socialism. Ma-tek began capitalist, at Frightening, and then transitioned to socialism, without any dip. Whereas Ma-Nenya began as socialist, at 'Basket-case' or something like, and is now 'Imploded'. Bugger.

So. I guess it was at least possible with the old issues (pre- user-submissions), at least, but there are a helluva lot more than there are now, so it'd be a bit tougher to get the right ones, I suppose.

This is actually how Marx saw societies should naturally progress. Marx believed that nations would naturally become capitalist to build up their industries and energize the economy and then the proletariat would rise and create a socialist government. This is how socialism is shown to "not work" and the "world" is the one thats not fair, the problem with the Bolshevik Revolution and other socialist takeovers was that they tried to push an Aristocratic society directly into a socialist society, which proved not to work. Marx believed that an Aristocratic society creates order and fills the basic needs of a country, and then yields to a Bourgeoisie society that would create industry in a country. This would finally yield to a Proletariat society that would use the order created by the Aristocratic and the industry created by the Bourgeoisie to fulfill the needs of every class in the country. Once again, maybe I am glad it works this way because thats how Marx envisioned it to work best.

This is actually how Marx saw societies should naturally progress. Marx believed that nations would naturally become capitalist to build up their industries and energize the economy and then the proletariat would rise and create a socialist government. This is how socialism is shown to "not work" and the "world" is the one thats not fair, the problem with the Bolshevik Revolution and other socialist takeovers was that they tried to push an Aristocratic society directly into a socialist society, which proved not to work. Marx believed that an Aristocratic society creates order and fills the basic needs of a country, and then yields to a Bourgeoisie society that would create industry in a country. This would finally yield to a Proletariat society that would use the order created by the Aristocratic and the industry created by the Bourgeoisie to fulfill the needs of every class in the country. Once again, maybe I am glad it works this way because thats how Marx envisioned it to work best.

In a way, this makes it a shame that my nation isn't really that Marxist at all.

At least, not ICly.

Rather, it's a compromise between capitalism and socialism; it has strongly socialist elements (a carefully planned economy) with weakly capitalist virtues (the 'simulation' of a capitalist, free economy within the planned economy to ensure trading compatibility with capitalist states).

Yet it's not really either capitalist or socialist, because there are imperialist elements as well - such as having an Empress whom's progeny will also lead, and who personally selects the Executive branch of government (although the legislative and constitutional branches are both elected to varying extents). The government certainly isn't what you could call 'socialist', despite socially progressive policy, and the people aren't in the least bit bothered what system anyone else uses (although naturally there is the belief that the Iluvauromeni way is superior). This is just the one that works for them.

See the constitution here (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Iluvauromeni_Constitution) for more info.

I think the trick to having a socialist economy at Frightening is probably to have a nation start out capitalist and then shift to socialism. Ma-tek began capitalist, at Frightening, and then transitioned to socialism, without any dip. Whereas Ma-Nenya began as socialist, at 'Basket-case' or something like, and is now 'Imploded'. Bugger.

So. I guess it was at least possible with the old issues (pre- user-submissions), at least, but there are a helluva lot more than there are now, so it'd be a bit tougher to get the right ones, I suppose.

I managed it with relative ease. Don't forget that it IS possible to dismiss issues.

Actually, it's the WORLD that's biased, because that's how the world works. Government is terribly inefficient, and government control over business just makes business inefficient. It's impossible to have a healthy business sector when government is controlling it, sorry guys...
Does someone else need to point out china? Tight government control yet a powerhouse economy some 500 billion surplus or something.

here (http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/nov12005/update840572005111.asp)
Driven by the "double surplus", China's international reserves reached a record 769 billion US dollars by the end of September, up 159.1 billion dollars from the beginning of the year, and 47.8 billion dollars more than the same period of last year.

The people making the issues are adding the bias. Government can be efficient.

Those who claim China is not Communist are perhaps ignorant of the New Economic Policy (NEP) phase of Soviet history - in which private industry was allowed in order to create a capital(ist) base on which to build socialism. Remember that 'capitalism' is only allowed in strictly defined 'economic zones' in China, with political control still resting with the Communist Party dictatorship.

Also, the idea that "1 billion Chinese can't be wrong" ignores the fact that China is still a dictatorship - when did 1 billion Chinese make this decision? Perhaps a better phrasing would be "a handful of cynical and alienated party bureaucrats can't be wrong", but I suppose it doesn't have the same ring to it.

In my opinion, China's growth is not sustainable, any more than the enormous growth in industry under Stalin's 5 Year Plans was sustainable. A totalitarian system, or to a lesser extent any system that assumes the Government knows more about the economy (supply and demand) than to those who are supplying and demanding can not compete against a system that gives greater economic freedom to the whole population. The success of the liberal-democratic capitalist model rests on the utilisation of the ideas of millions of people. Because the whole population is able to take part in the economy and the 'marketplace of ideas', and because the system readily allows the uptake of these ideas, the lib-dem-cap system is able to utilise developments too new or on too small a scale for the government to be aware of. Although 'socialists' criticise capitalism for 'inefficient' duplication, it is in fact the presence of innumerable different models that gives this economy its efficiency, flexibility and resilience.

China is a powerhouse at the moment because it is parasitising the innovations of the l-d-c system. The world currently has a level of wealth and technological advancement hitherto unimagined, with new electronic devices, pharmaceuticals, communications and materials technologies available to the common man. Many of these products are manufactured in China, but how many originated there? None. The newest ideas come from the USA, South Korea, Japan and other countries in which ideas are permitted and encouraged outside the straitjacket of government. Can we imagine the Internet developing from a Chinese starting-point?

In arguing against the defence of state-intervention 'socialism' defended here, am I arguing that 'there is no such thing as society' or that the individual has absolute primacy over social considerations? No.

Man is a social animal - natural mankind involves individuals interacting socially. This is why a non-democratic capitalism (such as that in China's special economic zones) can not work - because it does not allow individuals' new ideas to be shared in dynamic, autonomous social units.

The question for anyone trying to build a social-ist system is what institution(s) should embody the social will. The systems normally labelled socialism are those which have chosen the government as the sole or main embodiment of the 'social'. To confine the social realm to one inaccessible institution is absurdly limiting, particularly in an age of global commerce. In my view, all the social institutions of a society should be given the greatest degree of autonomy practicable. In the economic sphere, businesses are social institutions. They involve people coming together and sharing their resources - capital, ideas, skills, labour - this includes customers, workers, managers and owners. Trade unions are also social institutions, and that is why liberal-democracies should and generally do allow them a considerable degree of autonomy.

In China, these elements are alienated from each other, and are deprived of autonomy. Ideas (and often capital) are injected from external sources. Workers with ideas and drive are unable to accumulate the capital or power to move to other areas of the economy, partially because trade unions are not allowed autonomy, and because ideas and aspirations are naturally regarded with suspicion in any society in which power is formally segregated according to arbitrary categories (class background and party membership). Consequently, aspirations, innovation and drive are stifled in all but a narrow segment of the population. China can only succeed while it has a larger, more vibrant capitalist global economy with which to interact. It will not become the dominant power unless and until it undergoes a thorough political transformation.


Some of the most innovative ideas of the 19th Century 'socialists' were taken up by liberal-democracy and are now part of the system that is driving global prosperity.

In other words, if you want to see a working socialist economy, just take a look at Western liberal democracy.

Those who claim China is not Communist are perhaps ignorant of the New Economic Policy (NEP) phase of Soviet history

No, I see neither as being truly communist. So there. :p

No, I see neither as being truly communist. So there. :p

Fair enough - comes down to a matter of definitions I suppose.

Out of interest, can you point to any state (at any point in history) that you would consider to be truly communist?

(An added bonus if you can point to one that is/was doing well economically, for the sake of the above debate).

What I wanna know is if it's possible to have a socialist nation with a good ecomony WITHOUT corruption!

Fair enough - comes down to a matter of definitions I suppose.

Out of interest, can you point to any state (at any point in history) that you would consider to be truly communist?

(An added bonus if you can point to one that is/was doing well economically, for the sake of the above debate).

Well, i'm not big on Archaeology, but my understanding is that the collective nature of early hunter-gatherer societies would qualify, and could perhaps be extended to include "civilised" societies before the advent of currency.

More recently, we can see the anarchist movements in the Ukraine (post-1917) and Spain, during the civil war, but it will forever remain a mystery how those societies would have turned out had they managed to hold their own against their aggressors.

See, the problem here is that I am adamantly against Capitalism. I know that capitalism doesn't MAKE anyone greedy

Greed is an all-encompassing term.. it can be good or bad.

it just makes greed much more profitable and easy... :( And really, China is communist, theres the difference between communism and socialism... :D

Actually there is no real difference between Communism and Socialism.. Socialism = Communism and Communism = Socialism. The Two terms for socialism were divided because of the extreme situations that the wings of Socialists take. The Communists want Dictators in hopes for no-statism however, this philosophy is a sham for all it does is makes things worse and more dictatorial powers stay. The Socialist wing while wanting the state to control everything wants the people to maintain the illusion of choice so that they can make themselves slaves to the system.. Basically the two systems are the same one more extreme (and Short lived) then the other.

More recently, we can see the anarchist movements in the Ukraine (post-1917) and Spain, during the civil war, but it will forever remain a mystery how those societies would have turned out had they managed to hold their own against their aggressors.

The Socialist Anarchist movements (Failures in their own respect due to their name) were not among the most popular movements pre-wwi as well as post-wwi were Classical Liberalism was dominate however Spain (if you think that the Syndicalist(Socialist) Anarchist Movement) was good it is quite interesting to learn that they had laws in those societies made by big syndicates.

Some Examples of Anarchy are Ancient Iceland, Ancient Ireland (Yes, there was a King during the time of Private (Anarcho) Law), and today Near Market Anarchist (Anarcho-Capitalist) Somolia (not quite complete because everything takes time.

The Socialist Anarchist movements (Failures in their own respect due to their name)

Eh?

were not among the most popular movements pre-wwi as well as post-wwi were Classical Liberalism was dominate

I never disputed that.

however Spain (if you think that the Syndicalist(Socialist) Anarchist Movement) was good it is quite interesting to learn that they had laws in those societies made by big syndicates.

Yes, but there were anarchist communities that operated independently from the Republican government, though they did cooperate in fighting the war.

today Near Market Anarchist (Anarcho-Capitalist) Somolia (not quite complete because everything takes time.

No such thing, capitalism breeds heirarchy which is incompatible with anarchist thought.

I managed it with relative ease. Don't forget that it IS possible to dismiss issues.

Since I dismiss issues every single day in a strange and bizzarrely unsuccessful effort to try to make my in-game nation the same (at least socially and politically) as my In Character version, I would find it horrifically difficult to forget that it's possible to dismiss issues.

If only I could forget...

The nightmares don't ever go away, you know.

>.>

Greed is an all-encompassing term.. it can be good or bad.


Greed: An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.

Explain how being so selfish can be a good thing?


Actually there is no real difference between Communism and Socialism.. Socialism = Communism and Communism = Socialism.

This is most obviously not true, and I was about to call you on it, however you did it yourself...


The Two terms for socialism were divided because of the extreme situations that the wings of Socialists take. The Communists want Dictators in hopes for no-statism however, this philosophy is a sham for all it does is makes things worse and more dictatorial powers stay.

Heres a key word that made my head move back from the screen: "divided". Your right. They were divided because they are different ideologies. Communism believes in a one-man led government with a Vanguard to protect the government and silence opposition. Whereas Socialism believes in the redistribution of wealth and power to the people. They are completely different because one gives power and wealth to a very small group and the other attempts to give it to the masses.

Now, the next thing you say is interesting:


The Socialist wing while wanting the state to control everything wants the people to maintain the illusion of choice so that they can make themselves slaves to the system.. Basically the two systems are the same one more extreme (and Short lived) then the other.

Heres the thing, ideologies are different from what occurs in practice. The two are completely different ideologies, and this argument doesnt have room to make a jab at how they happen to work out. While we are at it, we could talk about all the capitalist states or the liberal democracies that have fallen into the same totalitarian dictatorship of the rich that you are talking about. If I wanted to bring up the United States I would have done so, but what I was talking about was the sepperation of the two ideas not the outcomes. The rich and powerful tend to create the type of society that you are talking about there, its not a phenomeon isolated within Socialism.

Heres a key word that made my head move back from the screen: "divided". Your right. They were divided because they are different ideologies. Communism believes in a one-man led government with a Vanguard to protect the government and silence opposition. Whereas Socialism believes in the redistribution of wealth and power to the people. They are completely different because one gives power and wealth to a very small group and the other attempts to give it to the masses.
No, a Communist dictatorship may believe in a one-man led government, but that's not the ideal of Communism. Communism is a group-led government at the very least, but when it was put into practice it didn't turn out like this. The theory is fairly sound, and very close to Socialism. Communism in its ideal form would attempt to distribute wealth across the population, although I think it would be inefficient.
You're confusing Communism with Stalinism, Maoism, etc.