 |
|  |
 |
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote: 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
|
 |
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001 time: 00:24
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ranskaldan
|
 |
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001 time: 00:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by 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. |
Of course wealth is important. No use having a "glorious" motherland if the people are starving.
As for capitalism -- it's not perfect, and is definitely not as efficient as socialism working at optimum. But socialism rarely works at optimum, since it's fundamentally vulnerable to imploding, standing still, reversing, corrupting, overproducing, underproducing, and other such unpleasantness. Capitalism does those too, but since capitalism depends on the greed of the populace to run (a guaranteed phenomenon) rather than the incorruptibility of the rulers (which is, frankly, very rare), its collapse is much less likely.
Also, I agree with Sikander on the last point: there's a reason why India was unable to overrun Pakistan in 2002.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999 time: 13:24
|
|
quote: But it is not more efficient than socialism - rampant overproduction for starters, which is near epidemic proportions for Chinese home appliances companies. |
Hey, you can't pin that on capitalism! That's just plain bad management.
Increasing production does not guarantee increase in market share. This was a case of people with little knowledge of basic management principles making marketing decisions for huge coporations . You can't blame a society that's so new at it, not to mention learning so quickly, but it can be exasperating at times.
Last edited by mindseye on 02-01-2003 at 22:18
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24. Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|