Socialism and Capitalism

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by A.V., Sep 10, 2010.

  1. A.V.

    A.V. New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    6,503
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Location:
    Moscow, russia




    The DFI big debate -Topic of the Month - will communism be back at the world stage ever .
    please remember this is a debate topic so please mention For or Against the motion at the top of your post and make concrete posts with arguments to make the post Approved.
     
  2.  
  3. Tshering22

    Tshering22 Sikkimese Saber Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,404
    Likes Received:
    2,783
    Location:
    Gangtok, Sikkim, India
    Utter nonsense. Socialism was a model that appealed to people when the priority was to enhance industrial capability and when 80% of country was extremely poor and uneducated. When people did not know the different forms of terrorism that we are seeing today, when people were serious about establishing and setting up basic infrastructure of the country. Today, one can expect Socialism to maybe come to Africa but again, Africa is not getting a chance to do that due to Jihadi terrorism in some of their otherwise-very-promising countries.

    Socialism was a thing of past that has been an obstacle to the never-changing GOI which has turned them into weak and corrupt pacifists. As economy grows bigger Nationalism will replace Socialism to assert ourselves over. The era of socialism is over in Asia; even in Communist countries.
     
    uvbar, HeinzGud, ani82v and 2 others like this.
  4. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,524
    Likes Received:
    1,547
    Q's
    1) Socialism = Communism (by your definition)??
    2) How do u define 'socialism"? (even countries like Myanmar claim to be 'socialism'. and in EU lots of countries are ruled by Social Democrats. What's YOUR socialism? 'a form of democracy' is too narrow or too ambiguous.)

    Before all these concepts are clarified, hardly any ground for discussion on 'REAL' Socialism!
     
  5. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,161
    Location:
    EST, USA
    For any debate to be meaningful, the terminologies should be well defined. I will make an attempt:

    • Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
    • Communism: 1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed 2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively
    • Socialism: 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
    • Democracy: a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
      b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
    • Republic: a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

    Courtesy: Merriam-Webster
     
    HeinzGud and Razor like this.
  6. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,161
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Socialism exists in many societies. Even the US has some degree of socialism in form of Social Security and Housing for Poor. Germany, despite being part of the 'Capitalist' oriented NATO, has been a Social State for a long time.

    I think one needs to study the societies and economies of countries that have transitioned to socialism to forecast whether socialism will be back and where it will be back.

    Now, communism can be of many types. It can be a communism that is compatible with democratic elections [Jyoti Basu], or it can be dictatorial [Joseph V. Stalin].
     
    average american likes this.
  7. Energon

    Energon DFI stars Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,199
    Likes Received:
    760
    I think the historical record of political theory put into practice is a rather sordid one. Communism, the ultimate "equalizer" spawned brutal fascism with a great penchant for killing fields and torture chambers, where "equality" was experienced by the hapless masses only in the form of subjugation to the state. Socialism, the most 'egalitarian' of all political theories showed us how poor countries can become poorer by systematically distributing poverty through a bloated and intricate governmental system of checks and balances. Or rather a model of corrupt inefficient government that siphoned off everyone's paychecks to fatten illicit bank balances. Also, the true blue blooded capitalists realized that they needed to resort to imperialism to ensure resources and enslave the markets of others so that theirs may remain free. With the said free markets they took everyone's money and lost it at the gambling table which then prompted a state funded bail out of epic socialist proportions. The hope of a recovery now relies heavily upon an uncomfortable deal with the world's largest communist party which seem to be obsessed with capitalism.

    Point being, nothing so far has been what it seems. Unless there is a resurgence in mass idiocy, it is unlikely that any of these philosophies will return in their true pure form. We are more than likely to see an emergence of localized phenomenon with weird mixtures of political philosophy.
     
    HeinzGud and Mad Indian like this.
  8. ejazr

    ejazr Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    1,378
    Location:
    Hyderabad and Sydney
    Socialist Push Behind India's Capitalist Rise?

    A Socialist Push Behind India Capitalist Rise: Pankaj Mishra - Bloomberg

    Twenty years ago, India faced a fiscal crisis caused by profligate public spending and rising oil prices after the first Persian Gulf War. There was a risk it would default on its international payments.

    The finance minister, an English-educated Sikh economist named Manmohan Singh, responded to an almost unmanageable situation by liberalizing trade and industrial policies.

    So India entered a bright world of market-driven capitalism after years of socialist darkness, and was set on its current path of almost 8 percent annual growth in gross domestic product.

    Or so the story goes. Like all historical watersheds, India’s economic liberalization in 1991 has generated its own share of heroes and myths. Few books or articles in the mainstream press about Indian politics and economy in the past two decades have been judicious with their praise for Manmohan Singh, the apparent slayer of India’s socialist fantasies, the prophet of free-market logic, and for the past seven years prime minister of India.

    But things are never so simple, and for Singh they have gotten vastly more complicated in recent years.

    Singh, a technocrat in the style of former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso and former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, has no base of his own in Indian politics. He really serves at the pleasure of Sonia Gandhi, the leader of the Congress Party. Uncharismatic and a poor communicator, he was always a slightly incongruous icon of the bold New India.

    A Global Darling

    The elites of Davos nevertheless love him. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari called him “the architect of modern India,” while the writer Fareed Zakaria said he was “a man of immense intelligence, unimpeachable integrity, and deep experience.”

    Yet in less than a year, Singh, tainted by a series of corruption scandals and fiascos -- the latest being the arrest of the anticorruption campaigner Anna Hazare -- has seen his domestic popularity collapse.

    The myths about Manmohan Singh lie shattered. However, cliches about the Indian economy continue to proliferate, conveniently summarized by a recent book review in the Wall Street Journal: “The roots of continued poverty lie in four decades of socialism, not in two decades of half-hearted capitalism that, for all its flaws, has lifted more Indians out of poverty than any other force in history.”

    Wisdom about India doesn’t get more conventional than this. But is it true?

    Ideologues of the right as well as the left have a fondness for sharp polarities: socialism versus capitalism, free markets versus the state. They also like clean historical breaks: In 1991, a glorious new era of revolutionary growth and development began -- that sort of thing.

    But as the case of India reveals, historical periods aren’t so neatly divided, and ideological prejudices, such as those that have distorted the current economic debate in the U.S., are a poor guide to a complex and endlessly dynamic reality. One can’t understand modern India without appreciating its unique socio-economic trajectory in recent decades.

    To credit Manmohan Singh for having effected a Superman-like rescue from socialism is to ignore many other factors and long-term causes, many dating back to the first years of India’s independence, such as Jawaharlal Nehru’s investment in heavy industries and technical training.

    A 1970s Boom

    To give an example of the many variables governing GDP growth: India’s economy expanded by an astonishing 9 percent in 1975 and 1976, thanks to a big increase in savings and investment rates, spurred by the nationalization of banks in the late 1960s and their rapid expansion across India. Poverty rates dropped to less than 40 percent from more than 50 percent, and per-capita incomes rose to unprecedented levels, in India in the 1980s -- long before most Indians had heard of Manmohan Singh.

    Growing up in India in the 1970s, I was constantly made aware of the complex interplay of economic systems and ideas. I found it impossible to avoid the quasi-socialist slogans of Indira Gandhi, then prime minister. But I also heard a great deal about the crony capitalism of her son, Sanjay Gandhi, the aggressive trailblazer for such Third World businessmen-scions as Tommy Suharto in Indonesia and Gamal Mubarak in Egypt.

    Kaushik Basu, a Cornell University economist and adviser to Singh, is only one of the many respected observers of the Indian economy to refute simple-minded claims that the end of socialism in 19901 was the main cause of subsequent high growth. “India never had socialism,” he asserts.

    Nehru was deeply influenced by the worldwide backlash to unregulated capitalism in the 1930s. He spoke of the importance of the state controlling the “commanding heights of the economy.” In actual practice, this meant exercising state control over banking, railways and airlines, and rigorously regulating the private sector. These restrictions on business, which spawned the “license-permit Raj” that so enriched corrupt politicians and officials, were often irrational.

    But socialist, India was not. Unlike China, there was always a large private industry, dating from the colonial era, whose manufacturing output exceeded, despite the restrictive regime, that of the public sector.

    While ridiculing the notion that India was socialist in any consequential way, the Oxford History of Indian Business claims that there was no “explicit opposition from organized business” to Nehru’s policies because they created “much greater scope for expansion and progress to private enterprise than was possible under the hands-off policy of the colonial regime.”

    Houses of Business

    This assessment is verified by the expansion in the post-1947 era of many long-established business families, such as the Tatas, Birlas, Thapars, Singhanias and Kirloskars, and the emergence and consolidation of many new houses, including Mahindra, Bajaj, Godrej, Ranbaxy and, now most famously, Ambani.

    Until 1969, India didn’t even have anti-monopoly legislation of the kind the U.S. has had since the Sherman Antitrust Act. As the Economist magazine noted recently, “Before liberalisation, many Indian firms enjoyed a quiet life in concentrated industries, where a coterie of licensed firms divided the market between them.”

    And, as happened under other severely protectionist economic regimes -- such as the U.S. and Germany in the 19th century and South Korea, Japan and Thailand after World War II, nascent industries in India benefited from the lack of international rivals.

    Narayan Murthy, the founder of Infosys Ltd. and the poster child of the New India, acknowledges that India’s expulsion of International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) in 1977 was as crucial to his modest beginnings in 1981 as the liberalization of the Indian economy in 1991.

    India’s economy before liberalization suffered from many maladies. While creating a small middle class and lavishing subsidies on the rich peasantry, it did little for the bulk of India’s poor majority. But insisting today that India should have opened up its economy in the 1950s is rather like saying that the U.S. should have lowered its steep tariffs in the 1880s before its manufacturers in the North and farmers in the Midwest were ready for international competition.

    Certainly, you need an indifference to history as well as great ideological certainty to insist that India should have embraced global capitalism immediately after it had liberated itself from the successors of the British East India Company.

    Socialist” China has, as the Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has written, consistently fared much better than India in all major human-development indices, despite its many self-inflicted disasters under Mao Zedong. It is far from embracing Western-style capitalism today, and its success seems to prove that having the public sector control the commanding heights of the economy is no bar to economic growth.

    Left-wing ideologues might take all this as a reason to mourn India’s half-hearted embrace of socialism. But they would be as blind to India’s unique history and political and socioeconomic conditions as their counterparts on the right, who think that unadulterated capitalism, presently the problem rather than the solution in its American and European heartlands, is the only way forward for India.
     
  9. LurkerBaba

    LurkerBaba Staff Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    6,769
    Likes Received:
    3,678
    Location:
    India
    Chinese is more capitalistic the 'West' itself !

    'Embracing ' :lol: the Chinese have gone way beyond that stage . "Communist Part of China" is just a silly moniker, in reality it's state sponsored capitalism !
     
    parijataka and Mad Indian like this.
  10. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,528
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    When Socialism first came to America

    America’s first socialist republic | Power Line
     
  11. Mad Indian

    Mad Indian Proud Bigot Veteran Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    12,830
    Likes Received:
    7,524
    Location:
    Podigai Hills.
    I dont know why many people here are socialists..... I dont even know whether they even understand that term..... AFAIK only 5-6% pay taxes in India, and only 7-8%(at the max 10%) have internet access.... Which means they are Rich themselves... So if they are socialists, doesn't it mean they are Masochists???? If they are not masochists( if they understand it and are ready to accept it) then they are Hypocrits( if they understand it but they dont want it implemented) or they do it for being Kewl(neither do they understand what it is nor do they want it that to happen)

    In my opinion, only people eligible to speak Socialism are those who cant get a job on their own... Socialism is that Lame..!!!


    Now if there is any one who who is a socialist out there, can discuss this issue with me.....
     
  12. Mad Indian

    Mad Indian Proud Bigot Veteran Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    12,830
    Likes Received:
    7,524
    Location:
    Podigai Hills.
    They say capitalism is unequal sharing of resources, but then again Socialism is equal distribution of miseries:der::der:.... Hope you catch my meaning:heh::heh:
     
    panduranghari and asianobserve like this.
  13. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,528
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    Democracy is mob rule. That's why republics were invented.
     
  14. Mad Indian

    Mad Indian Proud Bigot Veteran Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    12,830
    Likes Received:
    7,524
    Location:
    Podigai Hills.
    Yep this is specially true for diverse nations like India....!!!!!
     
  15. SPIEZ

    SPIEZ Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,507
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    Republics have now become thug rule these days.
     
  16. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,528
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    DPRK would be an example of that.
     
    SPIEZ likes this.
  17. KS

    KS Bye bye DFI Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    8,008
    Likes Received:
    5,718
    Location:
    irrelevant
    Real socialism is seen only in four countries on earth, AFAIK - Norway,Sweden,Finland and Denmark.
     
    maomao likes this.
  18. Mad Indian

    Mad Indian Proud Bigot Veteran Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    12,830
    Likes Received:
    7,524
    Location:
    Podigai Hills.
    for the amount of morality they have , they would have shown a better result had they been a capitalist society rather than a socialist one....
     
  19. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,528
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    5 Reasons Socialism Is Inferior To Capitalism - John Hawkins - Townhall Conservative Columnists
     
    parijataka and Mad Indian like this.
  20. KS

    KS Bye bye DFI Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    8,008
    Likes Received:
    5,718
    Location:
    irrelevant
    Two socialists ganging up......:cool:
     
    pmaitra likes this.
  21. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,161
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Tronic and I? Ha ha ha, I find his posts very accurate and objective. I guess he does have a socialist bent, am I right Tronic?

    Karthic, we are not defending socialism here. ;)
     

Share This Page