Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work together for the benefit of all. - John Maynard Keynes
Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work together for the benefit of all. - John Maynard Keynes
You're viewing part of a thread.
I don't know of many nations that would survive the unrelenting assault of a burgeoning superpower for 8 decades.
I like to think that the SU collapsed from a grain deficit. That's primarily an internal problem.
But that's a side-argument. Where can I find the blueprint for a working non-competitive organization?
We MLs look to USSR, China, and the many smaller socialist countries such as Vietnam, Cuba etc. as examples of a preferable system.
The moment socialism is achieved in a country, all its standards of living skyrocket, by every metric. They often achieve rapid development, a boom of technological research, and a vast reduction in power of the personalities Keynes is referring to.
As Farvana above hints, the only reason this system hasn't rapidly become the standard worldwide is because of the powerful capitalist class greedily and violently protecting its power. Essentially almost every major conflict in the last century has ultimately been about the capitalist class, based in Western host nations, fighting to destroy socialism, the only thing that truly threatens their power.
Socialism is foundationally built on human cooperation. While there are many heart-warming examples of the peoples of these countries working fiercly together, both among themselves and with other countries oppressed by the West, they were born into a hostile world controlled by capitalism and have often had to emulate their enemies just to survive. China in the late 20th century used competition, among other capitalist mechanisms, in order to develop, integrate themselves into the world economy, and to appear obedient to the West so they could quietly build up enough power to act truly independently.
The reason the USSR collapsed is complicated but it really is just a matter of 8 decades of siege and the occasional foundational mistake all piling up and finally materializing in a capitalist coup of the socialist government that was wildly unpopular; it was THEN that lifestyle metrics sharply tanked. Socialism is the newest system in humanity, it has scarcely been around 100 years, it is experimental and the USSR was the first country of its kind. China carefully took notes and devised strategies to make sure they didn't suffer the same fate.
The rift part in my comment. I think it's not enough to blame the capitalist class. If the masses can be swayed by a few, whatever socialism is implemented can be toppled by a bad idea that happens to arise in somebody's mind.
If AES countries aren't a good enough example for you, then such a blueprint does not exist. I'm not sure why it would though. Was the ascendancy of capitalism over feudalism driven a meticulously detailed blueprint for the new world to come?
Are AES countries good enough for you? Which ones?
I think we haven't found a way to create our level of civilization without competition. It's an open challenge.
Competition? The "civilized" countries built their wealth through violent appropiation of other nations resources and enslavement of their people, not through "competition".
That also happened before. Which country is not ruled by 'winners'? The difference was that the slave owners lost out to the machine owners. The wealth comes from knowledge and investment decisions. Trade came before wars.
What enabled much of the scientific and industrial innovation since the early modern age was the wealth directly extracted from colonies and by European companies who established monopolies throughout the globe.
Colonialism and Slavery are central to Europe's and, eventually, North America's industrialization. Slave owners walked so machine owners can run. Marx talks about this as well.
To picture Europe's wealth as the product of mere trade or 'competition' is simply inaccurate.
I agree.
My point is that other countries with slavery and empires had the slave owners enjoy the profits uninterrupted. The more intense competition that we call capitalism made the difference that led to our civilization.
I don't see how socialism can maintain our level of civilization without that competition.
Well, maybe “we” should reassess how “civilzed” “our level of civilisation” is.
You are more fundamentalist than christian fanatics themselves jfc. Competition only happens when new markets rise, and for a short period of time, it inevitably ends up as a monopoly. It is not a feature unique to capitalism, it has happened throughout history. Developments on production are what drive society forward, not the economic systems and classes that rise from that.
Also what "level of civilization" are you talking about? This is a "civilization" where you get killed for having a different skin color, a different facial feature, being born in land with resources, by demanding basic human dignity ffs.