Can we Create an America that can Lead the World - Page 3

Drake Tungsten · February 10, 2003, 01:52

When did China get attacked or messed with?

chequita guevara · February 10, 2003, 01:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
When did China get attacked or messed with?

Immediately following WWII and during the 1950s and '60s. Following WWII, the US moved forces into China to try and deny victory to the Reds, transporting ChiNat troops around, etc. We didn't do any actual fighting, though. We also sponsored ChiNat terrorists infiltrating into China and waging a guerilla war and acts of sabotage and terrorism. And then there's MacArthur's invasion of North Korea, which everyone knew that China wouldn't stand for.

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 01:56

Willem,

It's not so much a war between nations. It's a class war. The working class has not yet been victorious. When we are victorious you can be assured that we will be able to provide for ourselves quite well. Until then we are constantly under attack from our enemies.

Drake Tungsten · February 10, 2003, 02:00

That's pretty weak, che. Support for the Nationalists and the Korean War have nothing to do with China's decision to abandon communism decades later. They abandoned communism because it doesn't work...

cinch · February 10, 2003, 02:07

I'd just like to commend the people of this thread for making it an enjoyable read, and for keeping things civil and reasonable. I haven't enjoyed or been as interested in a thread as much as this in quite a while. Keep it coming!

Kudos all around.

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 02:21

Well capitalism isn't civil, but we can discuss it in a civil manner I suppose

David Floyd · February 10, 2003, 02:28

Quote:

Of course, as usually, you ignore the 150 failing capitalist states.

That's not really fair. Of these 150 "failing states", how many of them are saddled with corrupt, authoritarian governments that have little to do with capitalism?

Let's blame the true source of the problem - corrupt African/South American/Middle Eastern dictators whose primary concern is enriching themselves. That has nothing to do with capitalism, which involves freedom and free trade.

David Floyd · February 10, 2003, 02:30

Quote:

And then there's MacArthur's invasion of North Korea, which everyone knew that China wouldn't stand for.

Not that I support the push into North Korea - or, for that matter, US involvement in a civil war, period - but why was it the business of China? If you are making the argument that this move was inherently threatening to China, then you are simply making the same argument that Bush and Co. are making WRT Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.

David Floyd · February 10, 2003, 02:40

Quote:

When one side is constantly invaded and subjected to terrorism and the other side isn't, it skews the numbers.

Post-WW2 Soviet Union certainly wasn't innocent of wrongdoing. They maintained a huge army after the war, and stayed in areas that they "liberated" during the war, such as northern Iran. In Eastern Europe, they did not allow free elections, but rather set up a system of puppet satellite regimes against the will of the people living there. Granted, the US did much of the same, but I've never argued that the US is innocent of wrongdoing.

Or, let's look at the Soviet Union right after the Revolution. Sure, a bunch of other nations invaded it - although really they were fighting in support of the White Russians - believe it or not, the communists were not universally loved in Russia. Not that this intervention was right, I grant you.

Further, the Soviet Union invaded Poland in the 1920s and then attacked Finland in the Winter War. Yeah, sure, those were examples of capitalist powers going after the Soviet Union

Communist China has committed a litany of aggressive acts - the occupation of Tibet, the multiple border skirmishes and invasions of India (which, by the way, were fought because China wanted to take advantage of India's relative weakness in order to redraw borders), the invasion of Vietnam, years and years of shelling Taiwan, intervention against the US in Korea, border skirmishes with the Soviet Union, and, of course the murder of tens of millions of its own citizens. Again, the US did bad things too, but I'm not denying that.

Let's see...Cuba, for example, had troops in Africa exporting revolution by force of arms. The Soviet Union did the same thing in Africa, and both the SU and Cuba supplied communist forces in civil wars around the world. Communist terrorist groups, such as the Red Brigade and others, have committed a number of terrorist acts in the past.

North Korea, another communist state, is one of the most repressive in the world, starving its own people in favor of massive military spending to counter a threat that would probably not even be a threat if it hadn't launched an invasion of South Korea in 1950.

Come on, che....communist states commit plenty of aggressive and immoral acts, and generally are much more repressive towards their own people than capitalist (even using your definition of capitalism) states are.

Oerdin · February 10, 2003, 02:44

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Immediately following WWII and during the 1950s and '60s. Following WWII, the US moved forces into China to try and deny victory to the Reds, transporting ChiNat troops around, etc. We didn't do any actual fighting, though. We also sponsored ChiNat terrorists infiltrating into China and waging a guerilla war and acts of sabotage and terrorism. And then there's MacArthur's invasion of North Korea, which everyone knew that China wouldn't stand for.

There was actually a very small amount of help involved and a number of politicians and miliary planners lost their jobs because they "let China fall to the reds". The victory of the Chinese communists was a major motivating factor for the U.S. to become so deeply involved in both Korea and Vietnam.

BTW many historians contend Trumen should have followed MacAurthor's advice about invading communist china in 1950 or 1951. The Soviets were in no position to fight another major war and a U.S. supported invasion would have reinvigorated the, still on going, Chinese civil war. It would have been costly but Korea would probably been unified and China would likely would have gone through some sort of armistace/compromise between the nationalists and the communists.

David Floyd · February 10, 2003, 02:45

Oerdin, the Chinese Nationalists were defeated and forced into exile on Taiwan in 1949.

Oerdin · February 10, 2003, 03:07

But there was still navel fighting over several small islands off the Taianese coast. Plus the communists were promising to invade and conquor Taiwan (the last nationalist stronghold) and backed down only because Eisenhower promised to nuke them if they tried.

If MacAurthor's plan was followed the U.S./U.N. forces would have found many simpathizers who would have welcomed the nationalists back.

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 03:16

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

That's not really fair. Of these 150 "failing states", how many of them are saddled with corrupt, authoritarian governments that have little to do with capitalism?

Let's blame the true source of the problem - corrupt African/South American/Middle Eastern dictators whose primary concern is enriching themselves. That has nothing to do with capitalism, which involves freedom and free trade.

For that matter why don't you mention that most of the communist governments were corrupt and authoritarian.

GePap · February 10, 2003, 03:24

Short answer? No, we can't create a US to lead the world.

The fact is that the single greatest moment of US power was between 1945 and 1949. In those four years we trully had no equals. today we are better of perhaps than we were during the late 60's and 70's when the Soviets came their closest to us, but we are not back, nor are we ever likely to be back, to our unrivalled power in 1945.

The world does not exist to be lead. Anyone who thinks they can "lead" in anything more than just an example, and an example that will be tempred through cultural prisms, is a bit of a megalomanic. The US would do a much better job of creating for itself a solid public image, if it weren't for the fact that we are a dmeocracy with internal splits about the world, and thus unlikely to present a clearer pricture of what the US means to non-Americans as we are to Americans.

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 03:24

You guys are missing the point. When a country has a communist revolution it instantly gains many new powerfull enemies. They have less ability to trade and they have less diplomatic power. Considering this they have done suprisingly well compared to other capitalist nations. Other capitalist nations recieve aid and protection from industrialized nations and still don't do as well.

You all know that Russia would never have had a chance without communism. Instead they recovered from WWI and WWII with amazing efficiency, launched the first satillite and defended themselves from the industrialized capitalist nations for the entirety of the USSRs existance.

Propaganda · February 10, 2003, 03:44

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Can we Create an American that can Lead the World?

Sure, but only out of Russia, so make sure you keep sending your tax money to Russia and we'll make sure the world will be safe!

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 10:50

Che - then my point stands. Given the width and bredth of the 'franchise' in today's world, it is OUR beast. Good try tho....

As for the my-dad-is-bigger-than-your-dad, communist vs. capitalism debate, I'm not gonna go there. History has borne out which system works and which system doesn't. If you wish to cling to the belief that communism can be made to work, that's your bag, and I'll not try to convince you otherwise.

-=Vel=-

Willem · February 10, 2003, 10:59

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

For that matter why don't you mention that most of the communist governments were corrupt and authoritarian.

Because we wouldn't be able to find one that wasn't. Central authority lends itself to corruption. The only one I can think of that hasn't been is Cuba, and even that is suspect.

It sends me the message that communism is only appropriate for small nations with a limited economy. Anything more than that and corruption (selfishness) begins to eat away from the inside.

Willem · February 10, 2003, 11:11

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
You all know that Russia would never have had a chance without communism. Instead they recovered from WWI and WWII with amazing efficiency, launched the first satillite and defended themselves from the industrialized capitalist nations for the entirety of the USSRs existance.

Yes, communism is a good stepping stone for countries that have some serious difficulties. But it doesn't have sustainability, mainly because of the lack of an outlet for corruption and selfishness. A certain amount of both is to be expected in any society, but with a nation that functions with central planning alone, all the inefficiencies that corruption brings about will manifest only from within the government.

With capitalism, at least people can be corrupt in the stock market or in banking where their dishonesty and corruption usually doesn't cause any serious damage. It provides them with an outlet so the government, and hence the people, won't suffer directly from their actions.

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 12:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Because we wouldn't be able to find one that wasn't. Central authority lends itself to corruption. The only one I can think of that hasn't been is Cuba, and even that is suspect.

Central power is a natural outcome when a nation is at war. Take away war and you have less abuses of power from the top. In fact you have less power at the top altogether.

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
It sends me the message that communism is only appropriate for small nations with a limited economy. Anything more than that and corruption (selfishness) begins to eat away from the inside.

True, China didn't do well because of their size. They were way to centralized. They claimed to decentralize, but when they did it was a disaster. All the really did was leave all the poor rural communities out in the cold. You have to have something like a federal system where the regions have some powers.

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 12:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Yes, communism is a good stepping stone for countries that have some serious difficulties. But it doesn't have sustainability, mainly because of the lack of an outlet for corruption and selfishness. A certain amount of both is to be expected in any society, but with a nation that functions with central planning alone, all the inefficiencies that corruption brings about will manifest only from within the government.

That's new. Communism is a stepping stone to capitalism. Russia was a bit diferent. The industrialization of Russia was even more expoitive of its people than the industrialization of the united states was. Industrialization itself is exploitive, because capital accumulation comes out of wages. Communism shouldn't be exploitive. When it is its really fascism. Nations should industrialize under capitalism.

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
With capitalism, at least people can be corrupt in the stock market or in banking where their dishonesty and corruption usually doesn't cause any serious damage. It provides them with an outlet so the government, and hence the people, won't suffer directly from their actions.

It does cause serious damage. That's not all though. As workers we support their lifestyle while they sit back and think of better ways to rip us off and exploit us.

Willem · February 10, 2003, 12:40

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Communism shouldn't be exploitive. When it is its really fascism.

And that's one the major flaws of central planning, it makes it very easy for a single person to usurp the mechanism and turn it into fascism.

Quote:

It does cause serious damage.

You'll notice I said usually. Ordinarily the damage is restricted to the bank, and it's customers alone. All other financial institutions actually benefit by drawing consumers away from the one that was victimized by the corruption of it's managers. If there was only one state supported institution, the damage would be felt by all.

Quote:

As workers we support their lifestyle while they sit back and think of better ways to rip us off and exploit us.

So instead we'd support the lifestyle of politburos who sit back and think of better ways of repressing our freedom of choice and civil liberties? How is that an alternative?

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 12:57

Can you explain how central economic planning leads to fascism?

You'll notice I said usually. Ordinarily the damage is restricted to the bank, and it's customers alone. All other financial institutions actually benefit by drawing consumers away from the one that was victimized by the corruption of it's managers. If there was only one state supported institution, the damage would be felt by all.

We have different perceptions. I guess we are both bias by our political views.

So instead we'd support the lifestyle of politburos who sit back and think of better ways of repressing our freedom of choice and civil liberties? How is that an alternative?

It is different Willem, by the simple fact that there is not such a disparity in wealth. Only some of these people are corupt, and not so many as there are today. Think of all the people who have jobs today that that would not be needed in a communist system. These people are in a way doing the same thing. Stock brokers, blah. I'll take a central planner any day.

Willem · February 10, 2003, 13:29

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Can you explain how central economic planning leads to fascism?

It seems rather obvious to me. With all decisions in the hands of the government, all someone has to do is work his/her way to the top through the government apparatus. Once there, he will have control over the army, the industry, the financial institutions. He would have total control over all aspects of people's lives. That's exactly what happened with Stalin.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Quote:

We have different perceptions. I guess we are both bias by our political views.

No actually, I once held views very much like yours when I was younger. I've taken the time to look at the issue carefully from both sides and realized that in many ways I was being naive and idealistic. They are nice ideals to live by, but reality is a different thing altogether.

Quote:

Think of all the people who have jobs today that that would not be needed in a communist system. These people are in a way doing the same thing. Stock brokers, blah.

Yes, let's think of those people that have jobs. How many would still have them if we eliminate the diversity of the market place, and the state only produces one type of automobile, one type of computer, one style of clothing?

Many years ago, I think Bresnev was in power, I ran into a girl who had left the Soviet Union. She mentioned that yes, everyone had a job, but the approach was to hire three people for a task that only required one. Now I don't know about you, but I think I would rather curl up and die than be forced to work at a boring job where I usually ended up sitting on my butt for 8 hours a day.

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 13:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

It seems rather obvious to me. With all decisions in the hands of the government, all someone has to do is work his/her way to the top through the government apparatus. Once there, he will have control over the army, the industry, the financial institutions. He would have total control over all aspects of people's lives. That's exactly what happened with Stalin.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The army is the key here. Even in the US or canada, the commander and chief of the army has an oppotunity to take control of the state if you army obeys his orders. The key to a free people is the people standing up collectively at times like this. The Russians and the Chinese never did this. Either did the Germans, Italians or Japanese.

I don't support national communism only world communism. With world communism you don't need an army and you shouldn't need many police. In fact I think it should be placed into law a limit on the number of police.

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
No actually, I once held views very much like yours when I was younger. I've taken the time to look at the issue carefully from both sides and realized that in many ways I was being naive and idealistic. They are nice ideals to live by, but reality is a different thing altogether.

I used to be a libertarian when I was young and dumb

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Yes, let's think of those people that have jobs. How many would still have them if we eliminate the diversity of the market place, and the state only produces one type of automobile, one type of computer, one style of clothing?

Many years ago, I think Bresnev was in power, I ran into a girl who had left the Soviet Union. She mentioned that yes, everyone had a job, but the approach was to hire three people for a task that only required one. Now I don't know about you, but I think I would rather curl up and die than be forced to work at a boring job where I usually ended up sitting on my butt for 8 hours a day.

Well they were definitely screwing up since there were shortages. There are inefficiencies in both systems, but the thing about communism is you have some shortages and surpluses sometimes, but there is always the option of direct and immediate action being taken where that action is needed the most. And you don't have people complaining about taxes, inflation, and the rights of property owners. So the things that are really important get taken care of.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 14:13

Duncan – While I have never actually held the views you hold, I do understand them. I do not know if what follows will change your mind or not, but I will try to explain as best I can.

First, the concept of ownership.

Ownership is not a sin, nor a crime.

Imagine a world where cars, for example, were considered “community property.” If you went shopping, rather than getting in “your car” you could simply have your pick of any car in the lot.

That’d be kina groovy, wouldn’t it? I mean, you’d never know what you were going to get, but almost certainly you’d gravitate toward certain kinds of cars….maybe you’d be a “faster is better” kina guy, and always keep your eye out for the Lotus, or maybe you just really liked green, so your first pick would be a green car of any stripe.

And…that might work for a little while.

But what would the incentive be to maintain the cars? If you had a flat tire, would you be inclined to spend your money to fix it, or would you just leave it in the parking lot and go get another car? Same thing with an oil change. Why spend twenty bucks when you don’t have to, right? Just ditch it, and get a different car.

That’s the problem with community property. Everybody likes to use it, but nobody wants to maintain it.

So…if EVERYTHING is “communitized” then nothing gets proper maintenance, and why should it? You have no vested interest in maintaining it. You don’t own it, so it doesn’t matter.

The solution, of course, is to create legions of government employees whose job it is to maintain all this community property out there. We need people to keep all the machines on the factory floor in working order, people to chase down all the cars on the road, and make sure they’re in good running order, people to maintain all the computer stuff….so we create one gigantic arm of the government as a service sector….these people are not producers of anything….they merely clean up after you. To continue with the car example though….if cars are community owned, the logical choice would be to run them until they simply stopped working (again, no ownership = no incentive to fix them), which means that before long, cars would just be pushed off to the side of the road and abandoned, and it’d be up to the government employees to go out and haul the broken cars in to find out what was wrong with them, and get them in working order again (and repaint them, wash them, etc). This is exceedingly inefficient. In the first case, now the car repair branch of the government will have to have fleets of tow trucks to go get every single car that’s broken down, regardless of what’s wrong with it, and haul it back to the shop to investigate. And they will have no clue as to what’s wrong with it, so this could take time to discover.

Contrast that with private ownership of cars. If you OWN the car, will you take care of it? You bet you will! Especially if the car is your primary means back and forth to work! No car…no work….no work….no money, so yes! The car will be maintained, and now when it comes time to spend that twenty bucks for the oil change, you’ll dig into your wallet and make it happen. You won’t wait till your car dies on the side of the road (though that may happen now and again), rather, you’ll drive to the shop, tell the guy running the place “hey…it’s time I got my oil changed.” And he’ll get right to it. See the difference in efficiency there? HUGELY important advantage that capitalism has over communism.

In short, private ownership means better care will be taken with personal possessions, and capitalism is more efficient in the market than communism.

Capitalists innovate, Communists copy. Here’s why.

If you can own stuff, then you can own new ideas too. Let’s say that you work in a shoe factory in a capitalist country, and come up with an idea for a better shoe machine. A super-bada$$ shoe machine that can make fifteen times the number of shoes that the current machines can make.

You draw up plans for it and get a patent. It’s yours, so you pitch the idea to the shoe company you work for, and they LOVE it! In fact, they love it so much they want to buy the rights to build one of your machines. Now, you could do that, sure. Sell them the plans for the machine for X dollars, and go about your business (probably retiring from the shoe factory), OR, you could rent the machine to them….say for a small portion of the profits they made by using it. True, you don’t get as much money up front, but you’ll probably get more in the long run. Either way you choose to go, why not? It was your genius that thought of the idea, not someone else’s. Without you, they’d still be making one fifteenth of the number of shoes they COULD be making. You don’t think it’s a good thing to reward people for being creative? Apparently not, because communism does not think so.

Such innovation normally (there are exceptions, but normally) does not occur, and why should it? Why bother wracking your brains for a groovy idea like that, when IF you come up with something, the PolitBuro is going to come take it from you, declaring it property of the state, and maybe give you a plaque for your service to the party. How’s that for some motivation, eh?

So...you're saying then that if you owned the machine and the time was NOT ripe for revolution, you'd keep it and "exploit" those you hire to use it? Is that consistent? Why not just turn it over to them now....perhaps that would be the spart that ignites the revolution?

And nope...I believe you to be a good person, but I do not believe you would just hand over an expensive machine to others.

If you work hard, save your money, and buy something like that....why should you? The machine represents the fruits of YOUR hard work. Nobody else's.

If other people want to use your machine, that's cool, but they're using YOUR machine. Since the value of the machine is greater than the value of what's made from the machine, you pay them for their time spent making stuff, they pocket the money, and you eventually make the money back on the machine.

That's not evil or exploitive, that's common sense! And it also happens to be the essence of capitalism.

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 14:15

Wait....let me see if I understand you correctly.....

You want to take an economic system that has been demonstrated as a complete failure every time it has been attempted, and apply it globally????

As if somehow MORE of the same bad medicine will make any difference?

I don't get that.

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 15:21

Vel,

More often than not when some one becomes a capitalist. It's not by working hard and saving their money. They achieve their status by dishonest ways. It goes at least as far back as the punic wars. Soldiers went off to fight for Rome. They couldn't maintain their lands. Make a long story short they ended up landless when the wars were over. The people who didn't fight in the wars ended up with their land. It's the same way today. Things just aren't fair. Those with property have more opportunity to gain more porperty. The system works for them, not us.

As far as your view of communism. That's just some propaganda that keeps getting recycled. Some people without common sense see communism like that but not me. You can't just keep going to the store and getting whatever you want, then use it once and go back to the store because you want a new one.

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 15:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Wait....let me see if I understand you correctly.....

You want to take an economic system that has been demonstrated as a complete failure every time it has been attempted, and apply it globally????

As if somehow MORE of the same bad medicine will make any difference?

I don't get that.

-=Vel=-

Capitalism has only been successfull in your view in America. I admit it works better in other countries, but your not going to sell the American Dream to me. I know my history.

DinoDoc · February 10, 2003, 15:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
What I mean is an America which submits to UN stuff even though it doesn't like them.

Why should we?