| Communism and Capitalism | |
|---|---|
| Oct 24, 2005 04:56 | #11   |
 | I admit that the knowledge I was taught is behind time ,it is kinda of loosing face ,but it is the truth .I don't want to transfer the topic to discuss the reality of Chinese education :P |
| Oct 24, 2005 05:05 | #12 |
| What a harsh comment. Productive criticism is not apreciated I guess. Personal and national pride is a big thing..... |
| Oct 24, 2005 11:19 | #13 |
| Well, the review disguises the fact that all communistic systems failed to install functionable councils (following Marx) but ended up in dictator-like one-man-shows. Most of them have been overthrown by democratic movements(Russia, Poland, GDR,....many more), others found rescue in changing the economic system(Vietnam, China...), others still suffer under the boycotts of the US (like Cuba). But at the end the political system will be swallowed by the economic change, sooner or later. Back to the economic point: It is interesting to see that the economy of China, as a communistic country, is in fact the toughest of all market systems and fraternity changed into exploitation(of workers without any rights or of the environment), unemployment, lack of social insurance....loss of moralty (Conny mentioned) On the other hand, you need economic growth, so that you can fulfill all the environment protection, offering a social insurance system and so on. Both has to go hand in hand. The question would be what was first, the chicken or the egg? I would guess economic growths is the basic for the rest. It was always like that, if you look back in history, since early industrialization. Guess why a well developed country like the US avoid signing the Kyoto treaty? Because it is expensive. Why do people have to stay in line at the salvation army to get a warm soup? Because a public social insurance system is expensive. |
| Oct 25, 2005 11:17 | #14 |
| To WOCCA: No, I had no "conspiracy" thought on my mind, nor did I think of anything bad. I just wanted to mention that it sounds too "positive". But I guess your intention was just to show the development without any judgement, thats fine. About Norway, I have no clou. As far as I know, there never was a communistic government, even though they had close relationships to Russia, especially during WWII, but after the war they turned against Russia.Im not sure.But the idea of communism was quite popular for intellectuals all over the world during these times.... I still dont want to judge the idea of communism as a bad idea, but the practical implementation failed, because of human weaknesses.... Though for Cuba or China, I think it was a good change at first, away from corruption and dictatorships - who knows how the world would look like if Chiang Kai sheck would have ruled China, allowing international exploitation of the country or even doing it himself. Or Cuba, if Batista would have stayed in power, supported by the US and their fruit companies (and even the mafia;-) who only wanted to exploit the country. But in the end, it was always like: the king is dead, long live the (new) king! |
| Oct 25, 2005 11:51 | #15 |
| To Elcabron:I have reviewed one of my university subject named "Western Economics"from your words,Thanks a lot! |
| Oct 25, 2005 16:29 | #16 |
| There is no Eastern OR Western economics.... (the history monologue was just because of Classical/Neo-Classical/Keynesianism question of Conny) As a resumee: In China you have the toughest capitalistic economy and politics are not the classical communism anymore..... Communism is just a name put on the outside, so that the old people who fought for equality and fraternity can sleep well. But with INTEL inside! (I guess you know the commercial advertisement of Intel???) Like DENG said: Everybody will get rich, but some are first;-) |
| Oct 25, 2005 19:54 | #17 |
| To Elcabron:Yes,but in fact,the actuality is far away from DENG's expect!The rich was so rich,the poor gets worse and worse...... |
| Oct 25, 2005 21:41 | #18 |
| private property should be protected and encouraged ,we ignored the truth so that we made some mistakes before . Selfish is the human being's essence ,it is not a derogatory word here ,everyone has his own rights to make himself live better and satisfy his own needs at first ,then can we contribute to the country and society . Communism want to satisfy all people's needs at the same time ,it is almost impossible when the common property is not plenty enough . the will is good ,but can not carry out in reality . Capitalism just want to take good care of the rich , serve the upper class ,it is not equal to the common people . |
| Oct 30, 2005 15:15 | #19 |
| To Conny: "just...take good care of the rich , serve the upper class ,it is not equal to the common people" is what I heard about the Chinese economy, too. So what do you think is the systems name? Sounds like capitalism, doesnt it? Maybe they give it other funny names, but the truth looks different. To CALI: "The rich was so rich,the poor gets worse and worse..", that is why I called it stoneage capitalism, it is as tough as in the early Manchester days of industrialization, when the single worker had no rights at all, except the right of getting exploited. But at the same time this weakness is the strength of China, because without the huge army of touring workers from the countryside on this extremely liberal market the economic growth wouldnt have been possible. And with the rising share of well educated workers and academics the prosperity will hopefully spread throughout the country so that the gap between the rich and poor can be reduced. |
| Nov 1, 2005 02:03 | #20 |
| Yes,Elcabron,I agree with you!!!You like an economist:-) |
Post a Reply to: Communism and Capitalism
Copyright © 1998-2024 All rights reserved.