Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[BlindKitty]

The free market doesn't just magically make jobs for horses because their old positions were automated, and in economic terms there is no difference between a human and a horse.

nice strawmen BlindKitty.

Edited for accuracy; that's actually what I have in mind, although I've cut too much of the quote. Actually, in economical terms, horse and human are much more distinct than in biological terms, so this way it is way more stupider than before with my error...

[smjjames]

Huh? I never said anything about abolishing the state, just that China is a hybrid of capitalist economics and communist leadership. Actually, the economics might also be a hybrid of capitalism and communism. Red King would know more about that than I do.

Maybe I'm also mixing Marxist Communism vs Leninist/Stalinist Communism, I dunno.

But if the leadership was actually Communist then they would be working towards abolishing the state and abolishing money, creating an anarchist (or Communist, as they called it) society. The Chinese leadership doesn't seem to be working towards that at all, so they're not actually Communist at all. They are Communist in name only.

I don't think Soviet Russia was ever working towards abolishing the state and abolishing money? That's probably the 'communism' I'm referring to. Or at least Maoist Communism or whatever variant of Communism they're using now.

I'm probably also having a misunderstanding of the concept of Communism, plus Marxist Communism vs Stalinist Communism.

[Reelya]

"Centrally Planned Economy" is much less open to confusion that "communism".

Marx vs Lenin is basically bottom-up thinking (grass roots decision making), vs top-down thinking (some smart-ass tells everyone how to live for their own good).

Marx's ideas on evolution were capitalist -> socialist -> communist. Lenin created an "extra" step which doesn't exist in Marxism, to link capitalism and socialism, where a "vanguard party" runs an actual dictatorship to oversee the transition. The problem, just like Napoleon is that once you give someone absolute power, they don't want to give it back.

"State Capitalism" is actually a term used by Lenin to describe this transitionary phase, and it fits pretty well with what 20th Century Communism was about.

[smjjames]

"Centrally Planned Economy" is much less open to confusion that "communism".

Marx vs Lenin is basically bottom-up thinking (grass roots decision making), vs top-down thinking (some smart-ass tells everyone how to live for their own good).

So, Leninist/Stalinist and Maoist Communism should be called Centrally Planned Economy instead of Communism?

[Sergarr]

"Centrally Planned Economy" is much less open to confusion that "communism".

Marx vs Lenin is basically bottom-up thinking (grass roots decision making), vs top-down thinking (some smart-ass tells everyone how to live for their own good).

So, Leninist/Stalinist and Maoist Communism should be called Centrally Planned Economy instead of Communism?

Yes.

[Max White]

Can we get into a master class on how normalization of neoliberalism increases political apathy and fear of economic ruin makes people limit their repertoire of contention?

Now I remember why I wasted so many hours on bay12... 

Actually, in economical terms, horse and human are much more distinct than in biological terms, so this way it is way more stupider than before with my error...

Nope. They both contribute, they both consume. True, few horses I can think of are part of the landed gentry, but they are the prime example of a worker.

[Loud Whispers]

Russians are not fools who would see their nation destroyed just to take Kiev for a day and a fortnight.

Oh... Optimism. Go dig for gogis' posts

If I thought that any of the things said in this thread represented anyone's entire nation I would embrace global destruction readily as humanity's loss would be a welcome wake up call UR. It is not optimism to understand that a ruthless man seeking to preserve his power will not do something that will hurt it.

Russian history demonstrates that it is very hard to make Russians rebel. The only thing that can create a rebellion\coup - If current Russian Tsar is not harsh enough. Putin doesn't fit to that role

I'm not talking about rebellions and secession, I'm saying Russia cannot afford to continue scaring investors.

Japan had exactly zero chances to win in a war against USA, yet they attacked.

Imperial Japan is similar to Russia in this case how?
Japan had to attack Singapore and Pearl Harbour or it would've lost all its gains in China, its industries would have grinded to a shuddering halt and its relevance would be absolutely minimal essentially ending its war contributions completely.
Unless you're trying to say the EU is going to bomb Russia and Ukraine for their natural gas in a surprise attack.


Do you still support war against Russia, in lieu of all the points I brought up?

[wobbly]

I've seen Soviet Communism also called state-captalism before, e.g. the government owns everything.

[smjjames]

Japan was also not expecting (and didn't think we would) us to churn the gears of war and piledriver them.

[Reelya]

Japan never planned to actually "beat" America. They weren't that silly. Their goal was to force a stalemate and armistice where they could negotiate better terms.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH/AMH-23.htm

[smjjames]

They miscalculated the effect that the Pearl Harbor bombing would have though. Plus they missed our carriers because they weren't in the harbor at that time.

Kind of getting offtopic here though.

[Sergarr]

Even if Japan would win against US, that wouldn't help them because eventually this would happen.

[Loud Whispers]

They miscalculated the effect that the Pearl Harbor bombing would have though. Plus they missed our carriers because they weren't in the harbor at that time.

And they missed all the drydocks, the oil and all the other infrastructure the US Navy needed to continue functioning.

Even if Japan would win against US, that wouldn't help them because eventually this would happen.

And they still would have been blunted, bloodied and forced back out of Asia from India. They were waging war against the Dutch and British Empire whilst both Empires were on a war footing and they were fighting the Chinese whilst the Chinese were fighting a war for survival. Though yeah, this sounds more like armchair general general material than Europol.

[smjjames]

Meh, I guess as long as we're talking about WWII, it's still on topic?

Japan wasting their veteran pilots on kamakaze runs later in the war definetly didn't help either.

[10ebbor10]

This would be completely unprecedented in industrial economic theory and contradicted by basic theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobb%E2%80%93Douglas_production_function

BTW, I'm guessing you haven't read Marx because Marx predicted that rising capital in sectors like textiles and steel would produce the same effect that you predict due to computers and we saw how well that prediction worked with the Soviet Union the first time around.

So what you're saying is that as technology improves, and thus productivity goes up, investement will drop before employement does ?

You might have noticed, I'm no expert on economic theory