Globalizing industrialist root for Communists against poor peasant protestors

[Dinner]

Capitalists and communists agreeing on things.

Those are some strange bed fellows.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Capitalists and communists agreeing on things.

Those are some strange bed fellows.

It's because Caps and Coms are generally pro-progress, while peasants tend to be resistant to change.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I have no problem with forced aquisition, but I didn't know there were libertarians that shared my views.

That guy is not a libertarian, and not being logical either. He says:

After all, if a few naysayers block a deal, they are affecting the property rights of farmers who want to sell.

That, of course, isn't true. They're affecting the opportunity/chances of others to sell, not their rights to sell and the difference is not trivial.

Let's make analogies with this "two thirds" idea:

1) Microsoft could be voted out of business because two thirds of OS producers are being denied their right to profit

2) Norway (or Russia) could be voted to lower oil production by the OPEC, which holds two thirds of the oil reserves

3) and so on...

If land is to be expropriated, it should be decided exactly on the level of the state, not on the level of farmer communities. Taking away private property is excusible only if it benefits the society as a whole.

People and companies from one sector should never have autonomy over their matters. This leads to cartels, monopolies, price fixing... this "libertarian" has broken every rule in the libertarian book with his article.

[VetLegion]

A few comments on the article in the original post. Very informative. I don't get to hear much about India, which is bad because it holds many useful lessons for the ongoing capitalism vs communism debate (while communism is dead, degree of state involvement in the economy of which it is the extreme form is going to remain an important topic in the future).

It is interesting that it seems that in India there is a combination of communist governments (democratically elected no less, something very rare worldwide) and independant press. That's heartening, but kind of unexpected and weird. Perhaps it's true that these guys are more like some sort of social democrats than communists.

Thirdly, while it may seem that China's communism was conductive of modernization, it would be very bad to conclude from that (and this article) that strong-arm policies are the only way to industrialize and modernize. India shouldn't give up its democratic traditions and follow the Chinese route to modernization.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by VetLegion
If land is to be expropriated, it should be decided exactly on the level of the state, not on the level of farmer communities. Taking away private property is excusible only if it benefits the society as a whole.

People and companies from one sector should never have autonomy over their matters. This leads to cartels, monopolies, price fixing... this "libertarian" has broken every rule in the libertarian book with his article.

I don't think they should have autonomy, but I think they should be part of the decision making. I think everyone is happier that way and there is more power spread around.