Comments on Lucy Turnbull “Capitalism is still the only system that works”, 9/08/2010, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/capitalism-is-still-the-only-system-that-works-20100808-11q55.html?posted=sucessful
I note that Lucy has used China as an example to support her argument for capitalism.
However, Lucy did not say whether China is a capitalism system or not.
Most people argue about capitalism and communism as two extremes. But the reality is that most systems are not in those extremes and are somewhat in the areas not too far from the centre of the spectrum.
In most capitalism system, there are elements of socialism and in the few official socialism systems left, they are introduce capitalism elements.
Socialism or communism in its original and extreme form is dead, but it does not mean no other less extreme ones are left.
Capitalism has also evolved quite a lot from its original extreme form. Social welfares, though still swing around, are not based on the extreme capitalism. Government interventions or regulations, are not that either.
What is the future of the two systems?
It is highly likely that they will become different parties within a country; all will try to win the voters and become the government. In doing so, they will all adopt or evolve to become relevant.
There will no extreme capitalism, nor extreme socialism. Neither will exist for long, if any one or party adopts them.
It means both will coexist and compete.
This should tell if Lucy’s argument is correct or not.
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
2009-10-07
No death of either capitalism or socialism now
Comments on Irwin Stelzer “Death of capitalism exaggerated”, 7/10/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26174260-5013479,00.html
The argument of the death of capitalism of course is exaggerated, because that argument is silly and hysterical. However, it does not mean capitalism is completely health and is also equally silly and hysterical to argue that capitalism does not have problems.
Yes it is true that capitalism is adaptive and is evolving generally in the direction to the better. That itself shows that now there is no pure capitalism as such it existed when Karl Marx confidently did his work on capitalism. It has incorporated many elements or goals of the communism or socialism.
Only in this way that capitalism has survived to date, although it still has suffered serious and almost fatal problems from time to time that require more and more communism elements.
Indeed, what the Keynesian economics or macroeconomic policy for government to use taxes and spending to manage the economy could be argued as an offspring of socialism.
On the other side, socialism is no longer as pure as what Karl Marx had in mind. China is a prime example that incorporated market economy into its socialism.
So while it was premature to celebrate the death of capitalism by a handful extreme leftists, it is equally premature to declare a victory of capitalism over other types of social and economic systems.
Every system can be adaptive and it is now too early to predict the long fate of each of them capitalism and socialism included.
Everyone, leftists or rightists, extremes or moderates, should and needs to bear that in mind.
The argument of the death of capitalism of course is exaggerated, because that argument is silly and hysterical. However, it does not mean capitalism is completely health and is also equally silly and hysterical to argue that capitalism does not have problems.
Yes it is true that capitalism is adaptive and is evolving generally in the direction to the better. That itself shows that now there is no pure capitalism as such it existed when Karl Marx confidently did his work on capitalism. It has incorporated many elements or goals of the communism or socialism.
Only in this way that capitalism has survived to date, although it still has suffered serious and almost fatal problems from time to time that require more and more communism elements.
Indeed, what the Keynesian economics or macroeconomic policy for government to use taxes and spending to manage the economy could be argued as an offspring of socialism.
On the other side, socialism is no longer as pure as what Karl Marx had in mind. China is a prime example that incorporated market economy into its socialism.
So while it was premature to celebrate the death of capitalism by a handful extreme leftists, it is equally premature to declare a victory of capitalism over other types of social and economic systems.
Every system can be adaptive and it is now too early to predict the long fate of each of them capitalism and socialism included.
Everyone, leftists or rightists, extremes or moderates, should and needs to bear that in mind.
2009-09-26
More fundamental factors in play in history
Comments on Robert Manne “Past another turning point in history”, 26/09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26124842-7583,00.html
While your view of the left and the right in the west may have some truth, your have ignored some important points of their evolutions. You only noticed the bad aspects of the former USSR and ignored its any merits, even though you are a professor in history.
I am not a historian as you are. But it appears to me that there have been some more fundamental factors in play than what you have relied on for your argument.
I think one has got to look at the history more objectively, in the context of both longer history and wider social and international perspectives.
Did the rise of Keynesian have anything to do with the creation of the Soviet Russia and the USSR as a competing social system?
Did the re-emergence of the right or neo-liberalism have anything to do with the inability of government intervention based on the Keynesian aggregate demand management, or the failure of the both Keynesians and monetarists to come up with more effective macroeconomic tools to deal with the supply side macroeconomic problems as a result of the first oil shock?
Will the current crisis and the success of some developing economies in the east generate other new economic and social thinking beyond the confines of the left and the right in the west?
While your view of the left and the right in the west may have some truth, your have ignored some important points of their evolutions. You only noticed the bad aspects of the former USSR and ignored its any merits, even though you are a professor in history.
I am not a historian as you are. But it appears to me that there have been some more fundamental factors in play than what you have relied on for your argument.
I think one has got to look at the history more objectively, in the context of both longer history and wider social and international perspectives.
Did the rise of Keynesian have anything to do with the creation of the Soviet Russia and the USSR as a competing social system?
Did the re-emergence of the right or neo-liberalism have anything to do with the inability of government intervention based on the Keynesian aggregate demand management, or the failure of the both Keynesians and monetarists to come up with more effective macroeconomic tools to deal with the supply side macroeconomic problems as a result of the first oil shock?
Will the current crisis and the success of some developing economies in the east generate other new economic and social thinking beyond the confines of the left and the right in the west?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
