the fact that wealth wasn’t reaching the poor led to the socialist elections all over central and south america over the last 20 years.
A social market economy on the model of Germany or Scandinavian social democracy seems to be the most workable systems of socioeconomic organization.
Agreed, but there are huge cultural and political obstacles to putting some such thing in place in the U.S.
I don’t see where the European socialists have done any better than the Americans have done; indeed they’ve done worse. I walk around Copenhagen and see lots of poverty and slum just as I do in the States. It may not be as bad as Lagos but European socialism nor European capitalism has done all that good job.
One of my professors in college said that Marx’s problem was that while he identified the problem correctly (wealth inequality, classism, exploitation of labor, etc), his solution was pretty terrible.
What solution would that be? My impression is Marx is mainly a philosopher of history, not an economist. His predictions didn’t happen for sure, but true believers think someday they will (kinda like the return of Christ has now been put off for a couple thousand years).
The positive thing I find in the remaining “Communist” countries except N. Korea is that they have found a way to get things done humanely and sensibly without the corruption and distortions and swings of democratic politics.
To be fair to Marx, capitalism reforming a lot in the way it did seems pretty unpredictable. Child labor laws? Minimum wages? Unions? Unthinkable in Marx’s day. The liberalization of capitalism, in my opinion, has a lot to do with the increased political power of females in the Western world. If the suffrage movement had failed, I think Marx’s predictions for capitalism would have become much, much more likely.
hey… I wish we could say that you are right, but, if it has been tried many times and failed, that means it is a flawed system. anything looks good on paper. it is the ability to be applied that is the test.
That’s an interesting twist, and it has an appeal. The women who have run countries arbitrarily have all done pretty well.
I don’t think anything will “replace” communism. In fact, I think that the idea that international politics are guided by rational philosophical belief systems is a 20th century conceit, a worldview that didn’t exist before and won’t exist again. Communism, capitalism and any other “isms” were nothing more than historical idiosyncrasies.
could you elaborate? i can’t really conceive of a system without an ism and without propaganda and without all the polemics and hysterics that go along with it. it would be interesting if you could show me wrong though.
There are remaining Communist countries, and they are doing as well or better than others. The Russian example was perverted by Stalin: the system can work.
It’s democratic socialism.
Rather than have the government run the economy, liberals want it to correct for their perceived errors in capitalism.
Bullshit. No part of Copenhagen can be called a slum.
There are, arguably, ghettos - but slums? No way.
This is exactly how I feel, too, and have for years. So glad to see I’m not alone!
In American English, those two terms are pretty much synonymous. Ghetto can mean an ethnically enclosed urban area, but I can also just mean “slum”.
The Chinese are still calling it the Communist Party of China. I’ve read much verbiage on whether they are actually Communist. The right-leaning propaganda machine wants to say they aren’t really communist and have moved away from centrally planned economy. That’s a hard sell if not entirely false. But I understand why they would want to say it–the idea that a Communist country could be as successful as China is difficult for the American psyche to comprehend.
China is basically a state-capitalist regime and if anything the Right would want to insinuate China is communist to play up their threat. The fact is they have moved away centralized planning and nationalization. Please tell me how they are “Communist” in anything but name at this point. You could at least bring up Cuba as an example of a semi-successful communist society.
You think there’s no corruption in China or that their regime is “humane”?
Hell, China never even was communist anyway.