The Chinese "problem"?

[ranskaldan]

Western insistence on freedom and capitalism HERE NOW did Russia in. They switched over to a market economy and democratic system so fast that the country had no time to adjust. Such a switch isn't even worth the effort - they would be doing a lot better now had they simply continued with the old system.

Socialism and autocracy are both riddled with flaws - but so are democracy and capitalism. Switching from one flawed system to another with no smooth transition whatsoever resulted in an imploded, fragmented, failed state.

Frankly, that's why I am extremely suspicious of many Western attempts at bringing "freedom" to other peoples. Past history has shown just what kind of naivete this is.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by monkspider

That's a rather odd term to use, considering it is Stalinism that got them almost up to speed with the rest of Europe, even against great odds.

That's not quite true. The Soviet Union got up to levels of western European output, but with no hope of ever keeping pace with innovation/efficiency (the MiG bureau and a couple of others aside). One of the main reasons Russia is so screwed right now is that the vast majority of its industry is so hopelessly uncompetitive in a global market that its better to abandon it than to try to bring it up to speed.

Having said that, I agree that Russia will one day be a serious economic powerhouse. There's simply too many natural resources and well educated people to think that it will remain in the doldrums for a long period of time. Like so many other situations, what's needed more than anything else is a complete changing of the guard so that any feelings of the "good old days" under communism (read: dictatorship) are limited to those who have no chance to gain power.

[Ted Striker]

I will agree somewhat with ranskaladan. I remember when the markets melted because there was alot of gauging going on. Then we have the mafia problem.

There are some very basic ideas about capitalism that we take for granted when we think about things that are completely foreign to the average Russian. (I speak from an outsider's perspective and secondhand analysis, though). These basic ideas are things they still have to learn.

Hopefully we can learn from the Russian experience and ease the transition for others. I think China is doing it right.

Putin seems to be doing an excellent job, however. Plus he is our friend so that's always good. Better than the Czar of Vodka, Yeltsin.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Kontiki


That's not quite true. The Soviet Union got up to levels of western European output, but with no hope of ever keeping pace with innovation/efficiency (the MiG bureau and a couple of others aside). One of the main reasons Russia is so screwed right now is that the vast majority of its industry is so hopelessly uncompetitive in a global market that its better to abandon it than to try to bring it up to speed.

That is the main problem with socialism. Innovation and efficiency are utterly killed. Perestroika was inevitable - it just needed to be done right, and Gorbachev didn't.

Having said that, I agree that Russia will one day be a serious economic powerhouse. There's simply too many natural resources and well educated people to think that it will remain in the doldrums for a long period of time. Like so many other situations, what's needed more than anything else is a complete changing of the guard so that any feelings of the "good old days" under communism (read: dictatorship) are limited to those who have no chance to gain power.

But the old USSR was indeed the good old days for Russia - there is plenty to be learnt from those times. Mafiocracy in Russia today arose from Gorbachev's laisser-faire and Yeltsin's vodka-rule ( to TS), and the only way to suppress the mafiocracy is a Putinesque, Soviet-Lite system. Not the perfect solution, but Western insistence on "liberty" isn't helping the life of the average Russian.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
China's just using capitalism to build up. One they have the inudstry and technology, it's back to communism. You'll see.

i actually thought of that myself. a little "controlled jump start"

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by UberKruX


i actually thought of that myself. a little "controlled jump start"

Well, whatever the communist govt is planning, the newly-created Chinese middle class would be against any idea of a return to socialism. So...

[Inverse Icarus]

OT @ ransk:

who is that quote from in your sig? mbelleroff?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kontiki
That's not quite true. The Soviet Union got up to levels of western European output, but with no hope of ever keeping pace with innovation/efficiency (the MiG bureau and a couple of others aside).

How so? The USSR was the first to launch a sat and put a man into space. USA played catch-up.

Originally posted by Kontiki
One of the main reasons Russia is so screwed right now is that the vast majority of its industry is so hopelessly uncompetitive in a global market that its better to abandon it than to try to bring it up to speed.

That's a result of the Cold War, not a problem with socialism and/or communism. Russia's aerodynamics is at least a decade ahead of USA - check out the AA-11 Archer.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by UberKruX
OT @ ransk:

who is that quote from in your sig? mbelleroff?

Someone from a creation-evolution debate, a LONG time ago.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger




How so? The USSR was the first to launch a sat and put a man into space. USA played catch-up.



That's a result of the Cold War, not a problem with socialism and/or communism. Russia's aerodynamics is at least a decade ahead of USA - check out the AA-11 Archer.

That's not the point. The USSR did dominate in many endeavours - but in the end, it proved a system that was, ON THE WHOLE, more inflexible and inefficient. After all, it is the USSR that collapsed, USA that survived, and China that's switching to a more capitalist system and booming as a result.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
That's not the point. The USSR did dominate in many endeavours - but in the end, it proved a system that was, ON THE WHOLE, more inflexible and inefficient. After all, it is the USSR that collapsed, USA that survived, and China that's switching to a more capitalist system and booming as a result.

I wouldn't say it is more inefficient. Consider WWII, the USSR was able to increase output dispite the poundings of Nazi Germany.

As for the Cold War, the USA started out a whole lot bigger than the USSR did, it was surprising that it lasted that long. So instead of a mark of failure, the Cold War actually showed commnism/socialism could be very strong.

[ranskaldan]

It is more inefficient, if we compare socialism and capitalism as a whole across history. Capitalism propelled nation after nation to wealth; socialism propelled a few for a short time and sent the rest into abysses of various depths. The USSR at its height was pretty impressive. But capitalism sent the United States, Western Europe, Japan, S. Korea, the Pacific Rim, and now China to their heights.

Ultimately, socialism depends on honour as an incentive, while capitalism depends on greed. Honour is far more preferable and more effective when present. Greed, however, is always present, and hence is a better motivator.

[Urban Ranger]

I just guess I agree to disagee. If wealth is what you want, sure, capitalism is your thing, since it is best at accumulating wealth. But it is not more efficient than socialism - rampant overproduction for starters, which is near epidemic proportions for Chinese home appliances companies.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by monkspider

That's a rather odd term to use, considering it is Stalinism that got them almost up to speed with the rest of Europe, even against great odds.

What got them almost up to speed with the rest of Europe industrially was a combination of Stalin's will and power, and a sh!tload of Western technical expertise and capital. Without those it would have been a very long climb to industrialization, especially as many of the (relatively few) skilled industrial types at the time of the revolution were killed or fled.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I wouldn't say it is more inefficient. Consider WWII, the USSR was able to increase output dispite the poundings of Nazi Germany.

As for the Cold War, the USA started out a whole lot bigger than the USSR did, it was surprising that it lasted that long. So instead of a mark of failure, the Cold War actually showed commnism/socialism could be very strong.

Germany managed to increase its output impressively even with a pretty considerable pounding itself, and an economic system that was Byzantine. I wouldn't be all that proud of how the Commies fared in comparison.

As for the Cold War, it shows the power of nuclear weapons at least as much as the power of any ideology.