Communism and National Socialism

I should have known better than to argue with a pro in his native language... :lol:

 

... but how about with me?
You were so busy answering Roel's flood of economics you never answered mine!

 

Okay Ricky..wouldn't want you to feel slighted

I have no doubt your are a bright fellow Ricky and I bear you no personal animosity. I just have no further inclination to debate economic issues with you.

 

Canada has a communist party , there called the NDP or the NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY , they never fare well in elections but they are not evil , if communism is run properly without a dictator it could work , in a poorer nation till it gets itself back on it's feet. but as for national socialism , it is just evil

 

Exactly how do you think communism would work if there is no stimulus of personal gain to be found? It could work only under circumstances of extreme nationalism or propaganda, which makes it less communist.

As to the definitions of socialism, again:
"With the left wings of the old socialists generally seceding, calling themselves Communists, and affiliated with each other and with Moscow in the Communist International, the European socialists or social democrats were preponderantly parties of peaceable or revisionist Marxism, entirely willing to carry on the class conflict by parliamentary and legislative methods."
Palmer, Colton and Kramer, "A history of the modern world" (9th edition, New York 2002), 744-745.

 

communism could work , but not forever , it would work for a third or second world country that was trying to get back on it's feet.

 

I have read your happy coversation here and feel tempted to comment a bit, maybe a litle haphazardly, but I would like you to know my opimion:
1. Marxism: wherever marxist take power, they smash the economy and people heads. Then- it is not a good theory.
2. Tsarist autocracy and atrocities: I would like to recommend all of you a recent book of Solzhenitsyns – “200 years together” about Jewish life in Russia. Alas, the book somehow didn´t get translated from Russian. I wonder why? This book (as well as my Grandfather) says, that life in Russia was not bad for the Jews. Nor for the Russians. At least compared with USSR. Essentially a rule of law and a quickly developing economy in late 19th and up till WW1. Yes, they had the revolution in 1905 but it was much more in Western media than in reality. You say that the Tsar suppressed democracy. Yes, but he knew that it was impossible in Russia. And I must agree. (Besides, Nicolai was a fool, it was his government who ran the country, and not that bad, as is thought.
3. Why were Soviet butchers not persecuted after communism? IMO because many of them were old men by then, younger ones became “biznesmen” and the Russian inferiority complex did not allow to wash their dirty clothes before the eyes of “the world”.
4. Why not Nurnberg for Soviets (even in absentia): for the same reasons that Bomber Harris and the Americans who bombed Germany and Japan civilian life to stoneage went free. Atrocity of Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima…. Who cares now? Who cares that it was the British Government that started indiscriminate bombarding of civilian targets and not the Germans? It was Hitler and the Germans who were the bad guys, so who cares? Who cares about Operation Keelhaul (very good point, Castelot).
5. Bus driver: Why did Russians not repent Katyn? IMO Russians just hate Polish guts. It was the Poles who stopped Tukhachevsky, who started (with their Pope) to deconstruct the Sovie Empire, who occupied Moscow and put their own Tsar on the throne in 17th century. Nobody was able to do that since. Always the bloody Poles!
Ricky, why do you accuse Brits of keeping Jews out of Palestine? With all due respect for my own Eretz, the then already im balance of forces was against the Arabs already. What happened next is known. Brits tried to prevent this. Stalin wanted trouble in this area. That´s why my Grandfather was sent there with his toys.
6. The economic debate. Not being economist but, like Grieg, an ultrasound man, I can just humbly conclude that Grieg has read a lot of Ayn Rand and is a “fanatic” Randist (please, take it as a man) and Ricky&Roel are “fanatic” Welferists, which doesn´t surprise me. Both live in consensus, natonal nordic-type states with (still) good work and general ethics, where state enerprises like British Railways do/did function well and better than their private successors. Despite the profoundity of Ayn Rand and the opinion of Randists.
The problem is, that states like Netherlands are gradually bleeding their capital to China and the like. Who will invest in companies who have to pay exorbitant (relatively) taxes and wages if he can move the company to a place with no such burdens? Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and so on cannot afford their welfare as before, with their hordes of the old and unemployed. With their free welfare. They have nothing to attract capital with and everything to repel it. Why US hospitals use Indian radiologists to do the diagnosing? Because they are dirt cheap and good at the same time. Asians are many, and some of them are smarter than Europeans and Americans. Painful but true. Grieg, ain´t it right that state investments actually worked in East Asia (Japan, Taiwan, Korea) where Government, surely controlled by the upper stratum did the big investments in research and infrastructure that so handsomely helped these states to bloom? What would Ayn say about THAT?
And I must support R&R in monopoly debate. There seems to me to be a constant tendency to create monopolies or cartels. A bad eature of capitalist economy, but better than no capitalism. And another one is, that it is not the really wealthy who pay the taxes. They have numerous ways to avoid it (foundations etc.). So, the welfare state essentially distributes the wealth of middle class to the middle class (plus something to the really poor). Am I not right, Grieg? How much do the Rockefeller family pay in tax annually and how much wealth do they control?
I myself have no firm opinion about economy. But one thing is sure for me: don´t kill the producers. Don´t kill the energy of the individual entrepreneur. If you do, you´ll kill the economy together with the rest of freedom you have.

Sorry for the disruption, Gentlemen. The thing is that I was ill the last couple of days and totally accidentally I stumbled upon your excellent Forum and can´t stop reading (and, unfortunately, writing).

 

The British had the mandate for Palestine after we removed it from Turkish control at the end of WW1. We tried to keep the peace there... I'm sure you know the story as well as anybody!
After WW2, many ship-loads of European Jews plied their way to Palestine, but they were technically illegal & would create a greater Jew/Arab imbalance, so the British occupying forces would turn them away (if & when they caught them).
This is not accusation, it is truth. And not something that we are not especially proud of...

guilty as charged!

Keep going, Private!

 

Ricky, we are saying THE SAME thing about British policies in Palestine. They atempted to defend the Arabs and mainain/reestablish a reasonable balance. They failed. But you have no reason NOT to be proud to have attempted !

 

The Tsar was an autocrat. He was an untouchable above-all-else ruler and whatever he did, to maintain this position he would always have to please the large landowners to some extent. This means that democratization in Russia would never come about. There is no reason why it wouldn't have woked in Russia other than the fact that the Tsar managed to hold it at bay for so long. The peasants were unhappy with the reparations they had to pay the landowners after 1861; they were also unhappy about their living conditions and the lack of land at their disposal. The workers in the city were unhappy about the lack of any kind of social legislation. The intelligentsia were unhappy about the lack of any kind of liberal or social program in the country, meaning they were more and more estranged from their own country. In other words few people still supported the Tsar.

 

Izaak wrote:

You found me out! I thought I was well concealed! Hehe..you are correct I am indeed a Libertarian/ Objectivist/Randian/ Jeffersonian Liberal/ Unrepentant Capitalist

Many things that are destined to fail will appear to function properly in the short run. If you drain the oil from your auto and crank it up and drive away it will appear that everything is fine and dandy...for awhile.

Cheers Izaak..keep up the interesting posts. I enjoy your unique perspective and insights. No offense to the post admins but there tends to be a lack of diversity of opinion sometimes on these forums 8)

Not sure I know enough about the situation you mention to properly analyze it. I will have to look into it and will comment when I have something intelligent and wise to say 8)

 

Cheers Grieg!
I am only happy if I can make intelligent people laugh.
The welfare state nordic style was imo in fact working in communities with a good work ethics, like the northern European. I think, it was a logical step (and gradually taken) of their development. The opening of capital markets, cheap transport and communications as well as catastrophic demography and immigrands are killing it slowly but surely. Pity, I think.

The Asian way also could work only in certain communities, where national solidarity was/is a very strong factor. The fact that the Great Society or New Deal were disasters can´t close our eyes to societies with other features than ours. They just ARE different, very different sometimes.

 

I don't really understand this. In the Netherlands there has been a capital market, cheap transportation (for its time) and superfluous flows of immigrants ever since the 16th century. In this the system of the welfare state developed. how could it develop in the same circumstances that according to you are killing it nowadays?

Hmm, this is still a debatable subject. I f we want to go there please open another topic.

 

OK, I´ll try to put it another way. Good, cheap international transportation makes it easy to invest far away, where daily pay is 1 $ because you´ll have no problems getting the products to high income areas. Plus, removal of all restrictions on movement of capital (maybe in Netherlands there were no such restrictions, but in many other welfare states – yes). And – there have never in the history of welfare states been so many unproductive immigrants (In 16th century was there hardly welfare, Roel, admit it) and equally unproductive, yet demanding, elderly people and diminishing numbers of employables. Add to it an army of unemployed aborigines, and you have an impending crash landing of welfare as we know it.
Do you agree, Roel? KBO and Christian have surely their opinions on the subject as well, Denmark being in the process of slow deconstruction of welfare, as far as I am informed.

 

The Netherlands is a service economy; we make money out of providing services to consumers, investors and governments. This basically means, and has meant for centuries, that capital flows out of the country but the profits out of that capital flow into the country. So I don't see how investment in capital in low-wage countries somehow drains the Dutch economy now, after it hasn't for centuries.

 

And how it´s going with the welfare now, compared with 20ys ago? Just asking.
And what about the other welfare states? Ask a German. They have never in newer times had such an unemployment like now. They can´t just all of them sit and count money or write computer programs. Not even ALL Dutch or German people are that smart. Sure, many others can cut each others´ hair and remove dirty diapers from under the old people, but this is not going to make the country richer. People in W. Europe are just uncompetitive and too expensive. Jobs are flying out of the countries and there is virtually no hope to create real, new jobs. Same in Sweden and Denmark. They are making fake jobs in large quantities to show it´s not so bad and to make people get up in the morning but it has nothing to do with real economy.
Dutch services can probably also be moved East without big problems. Wait and see. (Sorry I am so pessimistic but the same thing is going on in Israel – also largely a service economy or very specialized production, often military. Still – many jobs disappear).
And the Americans with their job boom? How many people can sustain a family on husbands wage alone, as before? They have just created an army of, what they call "working poor".

 

Practice has shown, that moving e.g. computer programming to India, doesn't reduce costs. The wages are cheaper, but the amount of money used to test the quality of the usually-inferior coding, and the work needed to translate everything, takes up what is saved in wages. Recently, a Danish software company moved their production back into Denmark because of this.

In either case, if all the work is moved eastwards, then the saleries will increase in the east and they will fall in the west. This will result in an equalization of the wage level, until the global wages are constant. The main barrier against this resently is the support exhibited by the EU and US for agriculture (in Europe) and heavy industries and mining (in the US). Such trade barriers increase prices for consumers, thus creating an even greater salery gap, forcing gouvernments to pour even more money into financial support.

The only way out of this is to remove all gouvernment support, and allow the few industries, mines and farmers which are economically viable to stay, and export the rest to Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia. This will result in lower prices, lower taxes and a global equilization of wage levels.

The problem is, that the lobbyists for these industries will make sure that any politician who approaches these areas are not re-elected. The blame is not on the lobbyists, though - they nutture the natural interests of their employers, many of which would go bankrupt if the changes were made. They probably realize that the changes must be made, but they prefer that they are made after they are no longer in charge to take the blame.
It is the politicians who has the responsibility to take care of the citizen - this takes courage, which si something no politician has shown since in modern time.

Christian

 

Very true, very, IMO. The problem is, that by the time the wages equalize, the welfare will go bancrupt and the best brains fly away from the demanding elderly etc. Plus, the equalization, I´m afraid will tend to be nearer to the eastern, rather than western levels. Unfortunately. IMO, of course.
As to the politicians, you hit a very painful nerve. Very accurately. Democracy is the problem. An able oligarchy or able authoritarian rulers tend to think decennia ahead. That´s why there is a need for stable establishments. Nowadays – with a necessary mask of democracy – its very legitimity. I think USA is at this stage. But the problem there is, that that establishment does not necessarily thinks and acts in the interest of the lower strata of its society. It´s very far from the real society.
That´s of course just my impression. I´m sure your Kingdom also has a kind of establishment, but I don´t know how stable and, therefore, how far seeing it is. What would be your answer?

 

It doesn't really matter what the wages will stabilize at, though, since the prices will follow the developement. Today, we see that Poland has experienced tremendeous growth, with price and salery increases as a result. This hasn't resulted in any major salery decreases in the EU, but the prices haven't dropped much either. As long as the developement is at a fairly slow pace, it will not lead to serious financial problems - as long as the 'welfare society' is modified accordingly.
Today, two persons on unemployment support will make more money than they will if one of them takes a job at minimum wage level. This doesn't mean that the minimum wages must be increased - on the contrary, increased minimum wages will lower company profits, and will increase unployment. The unemployment support must be modified, so that those who are able to keep a minimum wage job will also do so - and the only means to do this is to make sure that these persons can only barely survive for what they get from the gouvernment.
A large gap between the highest and the lowest wages have been proven to work for the last two thousand years, but with the arrival of socialism all this was expected to change in less than a hundred years. The socialist system, in its current form, has failed, and must be replaced to create greater wealth for all. If all must be equal, then they will be equal at the lowest common level, and this is poverty.

Democracy is definately the weakest gouvernment form, since it is the only gouvernemnt form which rely on the average intelligence of the masses (which is lower than the average intelligence in total, and therefore any decision the masses make is stupid, and ultimately wrong), and it is the only gouvernment form which has a build-in self-destruction mechanism (since a democracy can appoint a dictator, as has been seen many times before). I believe it was Aristoteles who said that he thought monarchy was a better gouvernment form than democracy.

Christian

 

Democracy… how true, Christian, and how infinitely sad. Also because it´s now the only legitimation of the governments in all developed states.
I would say – democracy with a strong and stable establishment, able to make the masses take wiser decision. The problem is, that establishments tend to get alienated from their societies. Particularly because the most powerful (wealthy) people are citizens of the world, nowadays. There is no perfect system on this Earth. Nothing human made is perfect. We are cavemen, Christian. And cavemen did not have to construe good political systems for millions.

As to welfare state: yes, modify, meaning mostly cutting to the bone or more, as far as I am oriented the tendencies are. And cutting as much means liquidation. True, no decreases in wages in old EU, but the economies live on “respirators”, becoming more and more depleted of real jobs. I´m afraid, you are not quite right with the prices going down much further. All the Chinese products are as cheap as possible already (plus a big chunk in taxes and big chunks to dealers, retailers and so on).
I expect the European economies to implode one day, reach a very low bottom and learn to live more Chinese-style. I don´t expect democracies to be so wise as to cut wages (and living standards) to realistic levels voluntarily, I´m afraid.
I´m not sure I understand your remarks on socialism. See you!