Treatmeant of workers in Socialist States

[KrazyHorse]

The fact is, that the abuses being chronicled are those of the private sector of a country moving from public ownership of production to private ownership.

And therefore to use it as an example of the treatment of workers in a socialist state is dishonest.

Perhaps as an example of the treatment of workers in a "socialist state".

I seem to recall that the Nazis also called themselves socialist.

Remember what I said about fascism?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is very close, Frogger. I'd call it more of a mixed economy. I do think that socialist economies really cannot have more than, oh, about a 1/3rd private ownership to actually support the claim that the government owns the means of production.

As for the US, It does seem to be one of the few capitalist countries around (but on the border of mixed). The means of production seem to be more located in the private sector in the US than any other Western country.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Remember what I said about fascism?

Not really, but I wouldn't consider Fascism to endorse capitalism either. The major industries were all owned by party officials and basically under the whip of the leader. There were markets, but the economy was more under the fist of government than people are wont to believe.

Perhaps as an example of the treatment of workers in a "socialist state".

I don't think China is socialist. But they are more state owned than the Scandinavian countries, and it isn't like they have a reputation for free market economics.

[DuncanK]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Expansion of capitalist reforms result in certain problems. [QUOTE]

Is it ok if I use this for my signiture?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um... sure... it's common sense.

To believe that ANY reforms will not result in certain problems is naive, though it is you .

[DanS]

Imran, Canada's economy is ~55% public sector and 45% private sector.

Do you have a source for that? Doesn't seem right.

As I understand it, China is about 50/50 right now.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Remember what I said about fascism?

Not really, but I wouldn't consider Fascism to endorse capitalism either. The major industries were all owned by party officials and basically under the whip of the leader. There were markets, but the economy was more under the fist of government than people are wont to believe.

The term fascist is thrown around a lot. But individuals own the property and recieve profit from it, however the decisions regarding the business are ultimately made by the regime.

[DuncanK]

True, I'll wait for a better one

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
Imran, Canada's economy is ~55% public sector and 45% private sector.

Do you have a source for that? Doesn't seem right.

As I understand it, China is about 50/50 right now.

Read it a couple of places. It's one of those figures that's always stuck in my mind.

The comments about the socialization nature of other countries in G7 was based on a ranking I saw of tax rates for the countries in question. Admittedly there's not a one to one corespondence, but it's a good indication.

The US had the lowest taxes of the G7, followed by UK, Canada, and then the rest.

[Imran Siddiqui]

True, I'll wait for a better one

Dammit! You promised me sig space!

As I understand it, China is about 50/50 right now.

When it passes that threshold, I'll call it a capitalist economy.

[DuncanK]

Imran,

Give me something better than Marx, and you got it.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
...the introduction of capitalist reforms is the problem.

What about this one Imran?

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's not better than Marx... since that is the standard that you, yourself, set out.

Of course, my response to your Marx quote is "So?"

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
Imran, Canada's economy is ~55% public sector and 45% private sector.

Do you have a source for that? Doesn't seem right.

As I understand it, China is about 50/50 right now.

Ah ha.

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/1999/02/questions.html

public sector spending equalled 46.2 percent of Canada’s GDP in 1996, down from its 1992 high of 52.7 percent

I especially like this bit:

Government spending-to-GDP was 73.5 percent in Newfoundland in 1996, down from an astonishing 84.9 percent in 1992

It's not astonishing given Newfieland's situation. I'm more surprised it never peaked over 100% (given the money they get from the fed and the collapse of the fisheries).

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course, my response to your Marx quote is "So?"

I can deal with this one.