Can we Create an America that can Lead the World

[Arrian]

You always have a problem when you have a world system with different nations and capitalists. In the capitalist nations the government has pressure to give in to the demands of the capitalists. Otherwise the capitalists will take their capital elsewhere. In the communist countries people who can do better in the capitalist nations are going to go there, and that causes a shortage of skilled labor. Really, only a world system would/

Damn right they would, if they were allowed to (as opposed to hemmed in by say... a big freakin' fortified wall with minefields and guards with automatic weapons... Berlin Wall, anyone?). So your solution is to make the whole world communist so those people have nowhere to flee. *shakes head in wonder*

-Arrian

[Az]

Yes you can, they're both examples of how easily a communist society can be usurped by an individual for his own glorification.

Mao didn't usurp a communist society. He was a leader there a long time ago before China was communist. Stalin took over a couple of years after it's birth, and had very large influence during all stages.

There are plenty of examples of capitalist brutal dictatorships, as well.

But you do see the problem, though. Workers flee - to wealthier, free market nations where they can have a better life. Even the poor are better off in free market nations that the average worker in communist nations.

That's not true. were the people of the Philippines, or of Thailand better than the people of the SU at the time? It is true, the rich people of both countries live better than the well-off people of the SU. But there are much more poor people in the capitalist countries.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Arrian
So your solution is to make the whole world communist so those people have nowhere to flee. *shakes head in wonder*

-Arrian

Yes

[Velociryx]

'least you admit it....I think I'll pass on the "glorious" revolution, tho.

And that's another interesting point. The ONLY way this could work is if, world wide, the system were "reset." That is a polite way of saying genocide, against all property owners, and everybody who owns the "means of production."

That's a lot of blood on your hands, comrade....

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DuncanK

Even a world system of capitalist nations would be better than what we have now.

Ah poop! I should have said a one world government under capitalism would work better than what we have now. Sorry about the confusion.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Azazel
Mao didn't usurp a communist society.

He did during the Cultural Revolution when he imposed his will on the country and ignored the suffering he was causing the very people he was supposed to be responsible for. The same goes for Stalin.

There are plenty of examples of capitalist brutal dictatorships, as well.

True, but having a society with a centralized power base makes it that much easier to gain control of.

That's not true. were the people of the Philippines, or of Thailand better than the people of the SU at the time?

But did people from the Philipines and Thailand try to emigrate to the West or to the Communist Bloc. And the Philipines at least wasn't entirely a free market economy. It was controlled by a dictator who determined which people were included in the economy and which weren't. Only those people he favoured were allowed to prosper. The rest of the people were treated like dogs begging for a scrap at the dinner table.

[Arrian]

But those people are bad anyway, Vel. They "exploit" others, so they deserve it!

You know what I think would be cool? Many, many, many years from now, when we've colonized other worlds, we could set up two roughly similar planets with the two different systems. One Communist, one Capitalist. Upon reaching the age of majority, people would make a choice. Thus those choosing capitalism have freely chosen "exploitation" and those who choose communism have freely surrendered their liberty.

-Arrian

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx


'least you admit it....I think I'll pass on the "glorious" revolution, tho.

And that's another interesting point. The ONLY way this could work is if, world wide, the system were "reset." That is a polite way of saying genocide, against all property owners, and everybody who owns the "means of production."

That's a lot of blood on your hands, comrade....

-=Vel=-

Blood has already been spilled. It's just the blood of the working class. When the revolution comes there won't be much blood at all spilled though. Even if you were to stand up against your workers I don't believe that they would kill you. Although you might be sent to an education camp.

You will probably change you mind when you find that capitalism will no longer work for even the skilled laborers after the world economy comes crashing down.

[Velociryx]

An interesting experiment! For me, I know *exactly* which boat I'll be on!



-=Vel=-

[Az]

The investments have to do with special arrangement for the order zone only. South of the border zone you'll find investment is but a shadow of the northern areas. BTW Mexico has placed large sections of its economy off limits (petrol, banking, the list goes on and on) because moneyed interests in the country are afraid of competeting against U.S. companies.

Free trade is not interexchangeable with capitalism.
There were many capitalist protectionists in history.

Damn right they would, if they were allowed to (as opposed to hemmed in by say... a big freakin' fortified wall with minefields and guards with automatic weapons... Berlin Wall, anyone?). So your solution is to make the whole world communist so those people have nowhere to flee. *shakes head in wonder*

How is keeping people in less moral than keeping people out? You know, like Europe and the US?

[Velociryx]

Hmmm....for as long as I've been working class, I don't believe I've ever seen any blood being spilled at any of the places I work.

Guess I just got lucky, eh? I mean, cos surely it MUST be occuring everywhere outside my little world....

-=Vel=-
(Education camps....that sounds very Gulagish, btw)

[Velociryx]

'zazel....mostly cos we don't shoot 'em at the border to keep 'em out...we send them home!

And we DO let people in....but we do it in an organized way that will not damage our infrastructure.

There's a right way to do something....a responsible way, and then there's chaos.

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Hmmm....for as long as I've been working class, I don't believe I've ever seen any blood being spilled at any of the places I work.

Guess I just got lucky, eh? I mean, cos surely it MUST be occuring everywhere outside my little world....

-=Vel=-
(Education camps....that sounds very Gulagish, btw)

I wouldn't expect you to remember the US History where violence has been used against the working class. And I wouldn't expect you to consider the people who get sick and die due to poverty. And I wouldn't expect you to consider someones work as an extension of that person and that taking the produce of that work is like physically injuring that person.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK


You will probably change you mind when you find that capitalism will no longer work for even the skilled laborers after the world economy comes crashing down.

I've already changed my mind and I realize that capitalism is better. Why should I go back to an outmoded way of thinking?

And I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you, it doesn't look like the world economy is going to come crashing down anytime soon. In fact if anything, it seems to me that our downturns get milder and shorter as time goes along. I've been through a few of them now, and that's my impression at least.

[Arrian]

How is keeping people in less moral than keeping people out? You know, like Europe and the US?

First off, we typically don't shoot people who try to get in. In fact, the Coast Guard goes to great lengths to rescue incoming refugees - even though they will most likely not be allowed entry. East Germany most certainly did kill people attempting to flee.

Second, why is it moral to keep people out? Well, simply put, a democratic government of any given country exists by the consent of, and for the betterment of the citizens of that country. Not for humanity at large - but for the citizens of that country. Now, if the citizens of that country think it's a good idea to not allow immigration, that's their choice (they're dumb, but whatever). If they wish to allow limited immigration, fine. If they wish to allow unlimited immigration, also fine (also dumb). The citizens of the country in question have the right, IMO, to admit or not admit others.

-Arrian