Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says UK based study

[Naren1987]

yanks are idiots compared to europeans.

I know.

 

[pmaitra]

socialism is never meant for developing countries but only for industrialised developed countries. our left leaders are idiots.

Socialism is indeed very egalitarian.

It has pulled up backward countries like USSR and PRC into modern and powerful nations, as much as it has pulled down prosperous societies like UK and USA to a point where they are struggling to make ends meet!

 

[The Messiah]

Socialism is indeed very egalitarian.

It has pulled up backward countries like USSR and PRC into modern and powerful nations, as much as it has pulled down prosperous societies like UK and USA to a point where they are struggling to make ends meet!

That is because ussr and prc aren't/weren't socialist and nor are uk or usa now!

I would say that capitalism is infact a stepping stone towards socialism. imo mixed economy is the way forward taking into account positive attributes of both socialism and capitalism.

 

[Naren1987]

Socialism is indeed very egalitarian.

It has pulled up backward countries like USSR and PRC into modern and powerful nations, as much as it has pulled down prosperous societies like UK and USA to a point where they are struggling to make ends meet!

Actually, there are different forms of Socialism, the egalitarian rubbish that is there in the EU and USA, and hard headed Socialism like that of Germany in 1933, you may not like the Nazis from a political and cultural standpoint, but they WERE the first economy to fight their way out of a deppresion.

 

[debasree]

left right ,left right guys i am fed up the hole controvercy

 

[asianobserve]

It has pulled up backward countries like USSR and PRC into modern and powerful nations, as much as it has pulled down prosperous societies like UK and USA to a point where they are struggling to make ends meet!

Economic socialism? Means of production is socialised, publicly owned. You're telling me that China developed because of socialism? It's quiet the contrary. Remember that Deng engineered China to embrace market economy, albeit slowly but surely (unlike the USSR), after the disastrous socialist experiment of the Cultural revolution that caused widespread famine and deaths in China.

When the USSR attempted to match the West in spending it lost. Why? Because its socialist economic was not diversified and central control means sluggish adoptation to economic shocks (common problems of socialist economies, look at Cuba). So the US merely jacked up their defense spending to prompt the USSR to follow and then at the same time deprived the USSR of its biggest source of revenue (they don't have much other sources), oil, by coaxing Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries to dump oil into the market at cheap prices...the rest as they say is history.

Socialist economy is good at producing basic products cheaply, of course since profit is not an issue. But at the same time it stifles improvisation, creativity, quality and development, hallmarks of capitalism, generally leading to dull and uncompetitive products. A useful analogy can be made of Darwin's natural selection theory. Capitalism is like natural selection, it weeds out naturally weak markets, products or businesses. Socialism on the other hand is like a colony that is isolated. It lacks diversity and is less likely to survive when a foreign disease is introduced into their system.

BTW, socialism has not pulled down the US or UK. Excessive reliance on cheap credit and the rise of developing countries that chipped hard the industrial base of US and UK are causing them the problems. But there are always to sides to a coin.

 

[Mr.Ryu]

Some time less intelligent people are of more good to the nation than the intelligent ones.

 

[amoy]

Economic socialism? Means of production is socialised, publicly owned. You're telling me that China developed because of socialism? It's quiet the contrary. Remember that Deng engineered China to embrace market economy, albeit slowly but surely (unlike the USSR), after the disastrous socialist experiment of the Cultural revolution that caused widespread famine and deaths in China.

China roughly could be examined in in 2 phases IMO

1) when CCP took power in 1949 there was not much industry except in key cities and Manchuria, CCP actually "socialized" / "nationalized" major means of production. The state was enabled to gather and mobilize resources towards the very basics and priorities under the 'planned' economy (or central control). State owned enterprises dominated almost every sector and grew from Square One。

2) Deng steered transformation to a 'market economy' opening for private ent. / foreign investment

In this system, governments use various kinds of state-owned companies to manage the exploitation of resources that they consider the state's crown jewels and to create and maintain large numbers of jobs. They use select privately owned companies to dominate certain economic sectors. They use so-called sovereign wealth funds to invest their extra cash in ways that maximize the state's profits. In all three cases, the state is using markets to create wealth that can be directed as political officials see fit. And in all three cases, the ultimate motive is not economic (maximizing growth) but political (maximizing the state's power and the leadership's chances of survival). This is a form of capitalism but one in which the state acts as the dominant economic player and uses markets primarily for political gain.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/09/we_re_all_state_capitalists_now

Then why not start directly from phase 2 i.e. "market economy" and spare China from 'experiments'? Don't forget the context back then - If without phase 1 laying down the foundation, there was simply no fundamentals like industries, infrastructures, enormous educated / trained labor force (also consumers) unleashed from 'land reform', then on what basis could China transit to a 'market economy' or open for FDI?

So that 'socialist experiment' was not disastrous, overall speaking, while episodes like cultural revolution or leaps or famines deserve a separate discussion.

 

[civfanatic]

This study was held in UK and Canada, not in the US, and I'm sure the American middle class would score higher on intelligence tests than the lefties(minus the doctors and scientists).

Then it comes as no surprise. Canadians as a whole are more left-oriented than Americans, due in part to a more ethnically diverse population and greater importance of minority/native rights. Many Brits are also more left-oriented but for different reasons.

 

[civfanatic]

Then why not start directly from phase 2 i.e. "market economy" and spare China from 'experiments'? Don't forget the context back then - If without phase 1 laying down the foundation, there was simply no fundamentals like industries, infrastructures, enormous educated / trained labor force (also consumers) unleashed from 'land reform', then on what basis could China transit to a 'market economy' or open for FDI?

So that 'socialist experiment' was not disastrous, overall speaking, while episodes like cultural revolution or leaps or famines deserve a separate discussion.

This is very true, and applies to India as well. Many people do not understand the importance of the socialist era in Indian post-Independence socioeconomic development. The liberalization of the Indian economy was able to succeed because of the foundation laid during the previous four decades. It was between 1947 and 1990 that the basic education system, industries, and infrastructures were established. The British left India as a derelict ruin and building up the country from scratch required socialism and protectionism; a liberalization in 1947 itself would have had very devastating consequences.

 

[asianobserve]

Then why not start directly from phase 2 i.e. "market economy" and spare China from 'experiments'? Don't forget the context back then - If without phase 1 laying down the foundation, there was simply no fundamentals like industries, infrastructures, enormous educated / trained labor force (also consumers) unleashed from 'land reform', then on what basis could China transit to a 'market economy' or open for FDI?

Ask Mao... But I must agree with you that the totalitarian grip of Mao on China following the defeat of the Nationalists cemented back central authority and order. But this is the political side. You will notice also that China suffered under the same socialist framework, just dig your data...