posted
I listened to a news report on CNN that spoke of the hypocrisy of the US in trying to stop Viet Nam from falling into the Communist block in Bush's youth and now Bush trying to open up relations a generation later to increase Capitalist opportunities in the region.
Now maybe it changed when I was not looking but Capitalism is the opposite Communism, (Both are economic systems) it is possible to have a Democratic Commune, (Socialist Democrats can be found at you local Community College) or a Dictatorial Capitalist system, but Capitalism and Communism annihilate each other in a flash of high energy photons.
So what happened to the Communists in Viet Nam? If they truly have embraced Capitalism then the reality is our way of life won out when our raw military force just created a stalemate.
Also the question remains, why can't someone at CNN catch a first semester Economics gaff?
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't tell you the answer, but you can buy it in the new book "Communism for Fun and Profit" at any Karl Marx Mega-Mall (Beijing only, but opening in Ho Chi Mihn City in 2006.)
Seriously, however, no country has ever practiced Communism as envisioned by Marx and Engles or Capitalism as envisioned by Smith.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any communist country is going to be controlled by a Russian version of the nomenklatura. They are the ones who want 'capitalism'. They want 'capitalism', more trade with other countries, because they can sell off what they control for a greater personal profit to capitalist countries than they can screwing themselves over for crappy communist baubles. In short, it's simple greed rather than some noble desire to emulate our way of life.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, greed (or as comrade Smith more gently puts it, self-interest) has always been the driving engine of capitalism. What of it? Humans are what they are. Also, there are different varieties of greed; if the nomenklatura is greedy for power over other people, as opposed to a comfy lifestyle, then they'll stay communist. I'd much rather have materialistic people who go for capitalist economies in order to get the latest washing machines, than power-hungry people who stay communist for the pleasure of lording it over the peasants. You pays your money and you takes your choice, or, as the case may be, you stands in line and takes what the state gives you.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I have seen of the people they are driving in massive numbers, they are producing in record quantities and purchasing a large amount consumer goods. It looks pretty much like Hong Kong to me. Compare them to North Korea and you get a contrast that shows the economic difference between 'to those that need it from those that can produce it' and 'to those that earn it' but everyone knows that Communism is flawed in principle not just in a failure to create a pure version, while nothing slows a Capitalist economy like holding up a Socialist system that dilutes it. (though slowing it can be a good thing and protecting liberties and overcoming barriers to entry can be helpful as well.)
So the gaff was calling Viet Nam a Communist country when it has "Embraced Capitalism" just because the VC called themselves Communists.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, greed (or as comrade Smith more gently puts it, self-interest) has always been the driving engine of capitalism. What of it? Humans are what they are.
I would say greed and self interest are the driving engine of people, myself. In fact, I'll be provocative and just leave it at greed. edit: I do think that, semantically, there is probably a quantitative difference between the two.
The point here is that I don't think saying 'a way of life' won out is really accurate, as it leaves a lot unsaid. For instance, people always bought and sold things when Viet Nam was 'communist', I'm sure.
quote:
[quote]
Also, there are different varieties of greed; if the nomenklatura is greedy for power over other people, as opposed to a comfy lifestyle, then they'll stay communist. I'd much rather have materialistic people who go for capitalist economies in order to get the latest washing machines, than power-hungry people who stay communist for the pleasure of lording it over the peasants. You pays your money and you takes your choice, or, as the case may be, you stands in line and takes what the state gives you.
I think you can be greedy for power and be capitalist. This goes back to GS's point at the beginning of the thread of there being different flavors of 'capitalism'. For instance, imagine a society in which taxes are very low, the economy is booming, but the state has the power to search people at random, conduct star chambers, etc.
So, I'm not sure if I would call it a different flavor of greed. I think it comes down to empathy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
GS,
I will try and pay more attention to news about Vietnam to see if what you are saying is true. I may have jumped to a conclusion based on what I have read about the corruptive influence communist dictatorship had on Russia and other Eastern Bloc countries.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
SS: the wonderful thing about capitalism is everybody becomes better off regardless of what their motives are. That's the invisible hand, leading to the most efficient (and usually remarkably equal) allocation for a given set of preferences despite each actor only acting on the basis of his or her individual preferences.
And yes, Vietnam is strongly emulating China (which is experiencing massive growth in its middle class and general standard of living: http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/index.php/blog/aid_trade_and_globalization/ ). They've started to move into the low-value-added manufacturing game as China moves out of it, and are also making some significant inroads in technology.
Its not just that people are buying and selling things, but that consumption, not the state, is driving production in the economy in Vietnam today.
quote: SS: the wonderful thing about capitalism is everybody becomes better off regardless of what their motives are. That's the invisible hand, leading to the most efficient (and usually remarkably equal) allocation for a given set of preferences despite each actor only acting on the basis of his or her individual preferences.
I don't think I claimed otherwise, but I think this statement is somewhat idealistic. For instance, ideally, I can move to another job that pays better in a better economy, however, there are various ways that a segment of society has, in the past, used power to make it so that people can't go out and look for better work, effectively taking them off the market. For instance, the blacklist.
That's just one that deals with the financial aspect. There are lots of other things a society can do to make it so that one segment of society has much easier access to wealth and the concomitant ability to invest it than other parts of society.
Financial freedom for in a society does not practically equal social and financial freedom for all, I think. This is what I was trying to say in my last post.
Note that I am not arguing in any way, shape or form that Communism is somehow superior to capitalism. However, I think it can be argued that our country in the last 100 - 125 years or so is a financial success for all not just because of capitalism, but because we have had moral people in the state and private sector that believe that people should be given a chance at success and happiness.
Thank you for the links, by the way. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Capitalism does not mean free for all. Smith (and Friedman, who was even more strongly against government intervention in markets) considered certain kinds of government action necessary to create and maintain markets. A blacklist such as you describe would rarely work without a government maintaining the situation.
If it did, however, it would not contradict my statement (sadly). Most efficient can mean some are excluded because doing so is of high value to others. It should be noted, however, that there seems to be no positive correlation of free markets with such oppression, and numerous cases where expanding free markets have reduced such oppression. Equality is, as noted, a less consistent outcome, but is also quite common (though somewhat muted by some people becoming extremely better off even if everyone is becoming much better off).
Partly this seems to be a slight difference in described situtation. You're describing a system wherein people engage in transactions. I'm talking about systems wherein people engage in transactions freely. We are a long way from ideal in that way, but we can judge its success to some degree by noting the outcomes when countries move towards or away from it.
While I'm certainly happy in our remarkably un-corrupt government and businesses (at least in comparison to much of the world), I'm reluctant to ascribe our success to that quality. One, we have absorbed huge numbers of people from all over the world. More importantly, two, I (and economists in general) are reluctant to assume both that people are all that different and that people of higher moral character are somehow attracted to countries where people are well off. The better explanation seems to be that a well-constructed context promotes 'better' behavior. This is particularly supported by the relative higher incidence of corrupt activities in the US in areas more susceptible to corruption by construction.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I certainly don't think it equals financial or social freedom. It does have a long track record of increasing both. But efficiency is a much weaker statement, and while the gains in equality are impressive they are not as consistent (again, sadly).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Too true Fugu (is that the name of poison fish? If so that is interesting) I became morbidly fascinated by the turn of the century labor practices and the fortunes made thereon, it is quite a lesson for conservatives to see the powerful abuses possible by Capitalist. The Democrats rose to a parity of power on that issue alone.
Ironically the unions used their power to promote socialist reforms instead of seeking a redistribution of Capital (ownership, IE. corporate stock) which would have brought the situation much closer to the 'equality ideal' for those interested in the mechanics of such a thing just imagine taking half your paycheck or some fraction as stock in the company and you can pretty well see how that would develop.
Still the rest of the world seems to be caught as it is so many times between their local marketplace and the Western example with no map as to how to get from point A to B. Our history could be a very good guide to them, but the water is muddied by the still ringing Marxist promises and by the confusion of Socialism in the mature Capitalist societies that can afford the drag. (at least for now)
I was startled to find out that in most of Iraq it is impossible to say who owns a property! How can you do anything until you have records of property (real estate) ownership? Do we really have to start constructing Capitalist Democracies at the Magna Carta? It is one of the reasons why I see ten years as the only reasonable conservative time line in Iraq.
I have to think that Vietnam used the street cred they earned by holding against the US to buy some breathing room from Maoism and the fact that after the war I am sure there was a great deal of ordinance and military training around to make leaders cautious.
As a result Capitalism continued to grow up until today. Capitalism is not pure selfishness, that aspect of Smith's chain of assumptions is perhaps the one most easily proved false, "Desires are without limit" is just not born out by observation. People tend to find a level that they are comfortable at. However the direct impact of receiving a reward for the work of your hands has only become more scientifically valid as the basis for Operant conditioning in Behavior Psychology. It is clear that when people have the power to do so they keep the fruits of their labor as is the natural inclination. This reward for labor makes them work that much more, and with everyone putting their shoulders to the wheel things move along pretty well.
Do not bind the mouths of the kine that tread the grain is an old proverb, so much wisdom in the Bible...
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's even more amazing is that in much of the less developed world most people own at least some property (usually land or housing or a vehicle) 'illegally'. Iraq's a bit of a special case what with the recent war and all, but its inexcusable in many other places. The system is kept in place by rent-seeking officials who create complex processes requiring much of their attention (and frequently bribes) to get anything done. This means that in many countries it can take years to legally purchase a piece of land, or sell a car, or get utilities connected. So people do things illegally instead.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The institutional corruption of Iraq is epic, staggering and sick making, a cousin of the big-shot gets a local position and then sets himself up to dole out favors for bribes and disdain to those who fail to offer monetary compensation for him to sit on his plush bottom.
So are you poisonous or delicate? A whole world full of squatters with illegal utility connections, it is baffling where one even begins. I have long felt that a bit of Big Brother style fascism is needed, with a positive spin. They need a identity card that allows one to collect oil revenues and they need a home address to get a family 'kicker'. Thus they get photographed and printed and we get some demographic data that we can check up on. Again like voting it becomes a participators game.
I would like any info on how Vietnam went about its reform, I know that Russia hamstrung itself with trying to keep socialist policies in place that it could not afford as it moved to Capitalism, what was Vietnam's formula?
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
