,,

[Bud Struggle]

Here's an interesting article I stole from Newsbot...http://www.socialist.net/the-end-of-history.htm

Francis Fukuyama published a book premised on the Hegalian idea that since there was no more Marxist antithesis to the Capitalist thesis--than there could be no more synthesis. Hence history is over...Capitalism won and whice there will always be regional wars and ethnic comflicts--the great economic conflicts of the Capitalist/Communist period are over.

It seem to be true in the respect. Liberal Demoracy has won--only to be confronted by the old spectres of ethniticity and religion (who's importance may or may not be overplayed.)

This article in a lot of ways agrees with Fukuyama--it doesn't like him much, but it offers no real alternative.

(Sorry for the title--it was the only way I could post.)

[pusher robot]

Indeed.

[RedAnarchist]

I can has reason for thread?

[Bud Struggle]

I can has reason for thread?

It's the only way I can post a thread. I can make some mark, or a couple of letters (didn't work today) in the title and a word or two in the text--then post it, then I go in and Edit the post into whatever I REALLY want to say.

Sorry for the idiotic beginning. Blame it on the "tags." If any of you Commies want to go in and change the title--please do!

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The article doesn't appear to agree with Fukuyama at all.

In these circumstances the general drift of Fukuyama's ideas, which should have been discredited the moment he uttered them, evoked something of an echo with certain elements both on the right and the left of the labour movement. Strikes and even trade unions, it was 'explained’, were now outdated and irrelevant. Workers had been 'bought off' with consumerism. Human beings, they argued, are by nature greedy and selfish. Socialist ideas were a thing of the past, they said, because 'we're all middle class now.'

Capitalism (and markets in general) can't account for instances of supply outstripping demand other than through artificial scarcity, as we see on the internet, so to claim capitalism is the end of history would be to say we never achieve abundance. Information, software, and music prove this to be demonstrably false.

[Bud Struggle]

The article doesn't appear to agree with Fukuyama at all.

In these circumstances the general drift of Fukuyama's ideas, which should have been discredited the moment he uttered them, evoked something of an echo with certain elements both on the right and the left of the labour movement. Strikes and even trade unions, it was 'explained’, were now outdated and irrelevant. Workers had been 'bought off' with consumerism. Human beings, they argued, are by nature greedy and selfish. Socialist ideas were a thing of the past, they said, because 'we're all middle class now.'

Capitalism (and markets in general) can't account for instances of supply outstripping demand other than through artificial scarcity, as we see on the internet, so to claim capitalism is the end of history would be to say we never achieve abundance. Information, software, and music prove this to be demonstrably false.


I meant to say that the article offers no real rebuttal to FF in real world politics. There may be minor economic problems, and your examples of information, software and music may prove to be exceptions, but social democracies seem to be the future of the world.

[IcarusAngel]

Not a bad article.

I'll concede that democratic-capitalist has been better than a lot of systems in the past, including feudalism and mercantilism (though one could make the case that at least no one should technically starve to death in feudalism if they don't want to), and especially the USSR.

But I agree with the author that there remains humongous problems facing humanity as well, the capitalist wars among various states is deplorable, mostly fighting over resources, the number of people in poverty is still deplorable, and so on.

[RGacky3]

Hagels ideas, by their very nature, are next to impossible to accurately pin on history, Marx did it, but he did it more as a possible explination for history, not THE explination (at least I hope he did).

The Capitalist/Communist conflict, was'nt so much a Capitalist/Communist conflict, peraps it was in the early early 1900s to the 20s or 30s, but after that, once Stalin pretty much engulfed all the Communist movements under his wing, it became more about a power struggle between 2 super powers.

Liberal Democracy in the west and Socialism in the east, never had anything to do with it, it was a struggle for world power and influence, so you can say that niether of the ideologies won because it was'nt about ideology, you could say the American elite won over the Soviet elite.

oh and just to point something out, as long as Capitalism exists, there will be Socialism (in the broad sense I'm including radical labor as well as electoral socialsits), confronting it, and the labor uprisings in many countries due to food prices and gas prices are an example of that, as well as the quasi socialist governments willing elections in many countries.

That being said, never try and use one philosphy to explain history, especially one like Hegals philosphy which is so full of holes you can see right through it.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Fukuyama's thesis seems to amount to little more than the observation that the Cold War is over, and a largely unexplained belief that the immediate post-Cold War political economy will continue forever.

His argument appears to run as follows:

1. There is currently no major opposition to capitalism.
2. Therefore, there will never again be any major opposition to capitalism.

I'm sorry, but that does not follow at all.

[Bud Struggle]

His argument appears to run as follows:

1. There is currently no major opposition to capitalism.
2. Therefore, there will never again be any major opposition to capitalism.

I'm sorry, but that does not follow at all.

Hmmm. Maybe not, but how 'bout: "nothing in sight to challance Capitalism?" :lol:

[Baconator]

Fukuyama's thesis seems to amount to little more than the observation that the Cold War is over, and a largely unexplained belief that the immediate post-Cold War political economy will continue forever.

His argument appears to run as follows:

1. There is currently no major opposition to capitalism.
2. Therefore, there will never again be any major opposition to capitalism.

I'm sorry, but that does not follow at all.

The current capitalistic system will buckle on itself whether being a warfare/welfare hybrid like the U.S. or the welfare states of Europe. What you see in the current capitalist(neo-mercantilist) states is as far as socialism will go. In reality, Socialism can only relatively function as a leech on a (regulated) market economies in a wealth redistribution and warmongering fashion.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What you see in the current capitalist(neo-mercantilist) states is as far as socialism will go. In reality, Socialism can only relatively function as a leech on a (regulated) market economies in a wealth redistribution and warmongering fashion.
Congratulations, you have just proven that the Soviet Union never existed. Clearly, as Ludwig von Mises argued, a planned economy is impossible. Therefore, the so-called "Soviet Union" as well as the imaginary "people's republics" of Eastern Europe, East Asia, and Cuba, are nothing but fabrications of evil Judeo-Bolshevik propaganda. What actually happened was that aliens, funded by Wall Street, descended upon the Russian Empire in about 1917 and snatched the entire country from the spacetime continuum. This rift in the fabric of the universe was later extended over parts of Europe and Asia following the great cataclysm of the Second World War and the psycho-mystical-cosmic-energy-power-thingy that it unleashed. It was only closed in 1991, thanks to the valiant efforts of Ronald Reagan and Chuck Norris, who went back in time to harvest dinosaur blood, which they used to grant godhood to Friedrich Hayek and enable him to crush the socialist aliens.

I bow before your wisdom.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

We now return to your regularly scheduled serious discussions...


Hmmm. Maybe not, but how 'bout: "nothing in sight to challance Capitalism?" :lol:
Yes, true, that is the case in the world today.

But that was also the case in the world in 1916.

[Bud Struggle]

We now return to your regularly scheduled serious discussions...


Yes, true, that is the case in the world today.

But that was also the case in the world in 1916.

But that didn't work out.

Here's my problem: it's obvious that Capitalism is wonderful in a lot of ways, self determination, self control, individuality, etc. But it just exploits too many damn people as it goes along.

Communism--if there is something to it, hasn't proved itself. The SU and China are no way to live.

I don't think socialism is the answer--it takes all the fun out of life.

Maybe this mixup of all sorts of stuff is best after all.

[Baconator]

Congratulations, you have just proven that the Soviet Union never existed. Clearly, as Ludwig von Mises argued, a planned economy is impossible. Therefore, the so-called "Soviet Union" as well as the imaginary "people's republics" of Eastern Europe, East Asia, and Cuba, are nothing but fabrications of evil Judeo-Bolshevik propaganda. What actually happened was that aliens, funded by Wall Street, descended upon the Russian Empire in about 1917 and snatched the entire country from the spacetime continuum. This rift in the fabric of the universe was later extended over parts of Europe and Asia following the great cataclysm of the Second World War and the psycho-mystical-cosmic-energy-power-thingy that it unleashed. It was only closed in 1991, thanks to the valiant efforts of Ronald Reagan and Chuck Norris, who went back in time to harvest dinosaur blood, which they used to grant godhood to Friedrich Hayek and enable him to crush the socialist aliens.

I bow before your wisdom.

Most of the above written is BS. You misconstrued what Mises said. Mises never predicted when the SU would collapse, but it did without an invasion or anything. The SU was a lot like the U.S. Post Office. It's central planners treated the entire Soviet economy as a single firm. It had the benefit of being surrounded by a mostly market orientated world from which it took prices from when it traded. 1917-1924 Lenin abolished money and all market mechanisms in the SU until he realized that this young socialist state was on the verge total and utter collapse and had to reinstate things like money and extremely limited property rights in order to save it.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Most of the above written is BS. You misconstrued what Mises said. Mises never predicted when the SU would collapse, but it did without an invasion or anything.
Since nothing lasts forever, a prediction that X government, country or system will end eventually is completely worthless. Of course it will. Furthermore, since Russia is far too large to be conquered by a foreign power, a prediction that Y regime in Russia will end through something other than foreign conquest is equally self-evident, and equally worthless.

I can predict with absolute certainty that the system established by Putin in Russia will eventually collapse, and it will not be due to a foreign invasion. Likewise for the present systems in China or the United States. I don't need any theory to make these predictions, I just need common sense.


But that didn't work out.
Yes, but if at first you don't succeed...


Here's my problem: it's obvious that Capitalism is wonderful in a lot of ways, self determination, self control, individuality, etc. But it just exploits too many damn people as it goes along.

Communism--if there is something to it, hasn't proved itself. The SU and China are no way to live.

I don't think socialism is the answer--it takes all the fun out of life.
Nah, I can tell you from personal experience that fun was one of the things most certainly not lacking from pre-1989 Eastern Europe. In general, people weren't terribly upset about the restrictions on freedom of speech and civil liberties either, since those really only affected writers and artists. What did get people very upset - the main reason they opposed the system - was the extremely high and all-pervasive corruption of government officials. Western depictions of life under totalitarianism are completely off the mark. It's the corruption, not any lack of freedom, that really makes life difficult.

[Baconator]

Edric , Mises correctly pointed out that calculation was impossible in a 'socialist economy' ( which is an oxymoron) and the SU central planners never figured out a way to come up accurately with any price system. They borrowed prices from neighboring market orientated countries. Mises said that in a very primitive economy , central planning and collectivization is possible but only with an extremely low entropy. In a modern economy with millions upon millions of inputs planning is impossible. ( Can you imagine a Bureau of Comrades planning the stock market. :lol:) So LvM told us why pretty accurately.

[Demogorgon]

They borrowed prices from neighboring market orientated countries.
No they didn't. Prices in Eastern block countries were often very different from those in western countries. Staple goods tended to be much cheaper and certain luxury goods more expensive. Pricing was set based upon what goods the planners wanted to encourage use of, the cost of producing goods and how much they were willing to subsidise a good by.

You can not declare that something was the case simply because Von Mises thought it would be the case.

Besides your empty criticisms of central planning are not of much use here. The majority of this board are anarchists who do not believe in central planning anyway.

[Dean]

Edric , Mises correctly pointed out that calculation was impossible in a 'socialist economy' ( which is an oxymoron)

Yes.. and this is why you're so enlightened and we're somehow ignorant.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Edric , Mises correctly pointed out that calculation was impossible in a 'socialist economy' ( which is an oxymoron) and the SU central planners never figured out a way to come up accurately with any price system.
Explain, then, how come the GDP of the Soviet Union was the second largest in the world at the time of its dissolution.


So LvM told us why pretty accurately.
No, not at all. Although the Soviet economy was doing badly at the time of dissolution, the cause of collapse was political rather than economic. The Yeltsin faction, who wanted to destroy the USSR and restore capitalism, defeated the Gorbachev faction and the hardliner faction as a result of political power games. The economy had very little to do with it. Rather, it was the weakness of the Gorbachev faction and its failure to hold on to Eastern Europe that allowed Yeltsin to accumulate enough power to carry out his plans.

If central authority in the USSR had collapsed Somalia-style as a result of economic meltdown, then Mises could have been vindicated. But that's not what happened. Power was passed smoothly from one faction to another. The restoration of capitalism was done by government fiat.

[Baconator]

GDP is a poor indicator of people's real wealth or real growth. In 1946 the U.S. GDP was at its lowest point in history , even lower than the GD , but real wealth for the average American peaked.

The USSR had no shortage of skilled labor. The USSR produced a lot of things such as sputnik but thats irrelevant. The real question is what were the costs of Soviet centrally planned projects? They never knew but collectivized farms ( 99% of all farmland in the USSR) performed poorly as many were unattended because people were in factories instead. The pricing in the USSR was pretty inaccurate but in the distant ball park thanks to trade with market nations and black market activity.

Remember, Mises said a centrally planned economy could work in primitive conditions with low entropy. In a modernized economy with the potential of the Soviet union ( the most resource rich country in the world) such calculation without a pricing mechanism was impossible. I can site many examples of costly Soviet production if you want. No, thats not saying America was perfect either. We also live under a controlled economy , just considerably less so than the USSR was.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

GDP is a poor indicator of people's real wealth or real growth. In 1946 the U.S. GDP was at its lowest point in history , even lower than the GD, but real wealth for the average American peaked.
Well, nearly all capitalist claims about the superiority of the market economy are based on GDP figures. If you want to renounce GDP, be my guest, but then you cannot make any pro-capitalist arguments based on GDP statistics.


The USSR had no shortage of skilled labor. The USSR produced a lot of things such as sputnik but thats irrelevant.
Wait, so the USSR's ability to educate its citizens to a high level, its advanced space technology, and its production capacity - all these things are irrelevant? What is relevant, then?

I measure the performance of an economic system by its results. You seem to be saying that results don't matter.

[RGacky3]

Wait, so the USSR's ability to educate its citizens to a high level, its advanced space technology, and its production capacity - all these things are irrelevant? What is relevant, then?

I measure the performance of an economic system by its results. You seem to be saying that results don't matter.

They are irrelivent if they arn't being made for the needs of the people, North Korea, makes tons and tons of weapons, they produce a lot, they have a great army, but I'd say thats irrelivent when defending the government. The USSR produced a lot, but a lot of it wa'snt for hte benefit of the people.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

True, but it could have been for the benefit of the people; the economy was productive enough to ensure a high standard of living. The reasons why it did not do this were political, not economic.

Economic performance is irrelevant when defending the government, of course. But it's very relevant when making the argument that the economic system of the USSR was, broadly speaking, good and viable.

[RGacky3]

Economic performance is irrelevant when defending the government, of course. But it's very relevant when making the argument that the economic system of the USSR was, broadly speaking, good and viable.

No its completely relevant because the economic system in the USSR was run by the government, they are one in the same, both political and economic systems are intertwined.

[Robert]

The USSR produced a lot of things such as sputnik but thats irrelevant.

Well, it seems irrelevant now, but sputnik sure had President Eisenhower and the U.S. Congress shitting little green apples! Capitalism is supposed to provide the best environment for initiative and innovation, but them Russkies somehow managed to beat our asses into space, over and over again, and this just 15 years after the Germans had murdered 26+ million and practically burned the place to the ground!

I'd like to talk to a few of their engineers and know more about how they did it.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

No its completely relevant because the economic system in the USSR was run by the government, they are one in the same, both political and economic systems are intertwined.
Let me use a comparison then: The Soviet economic system was like a machine, and the Soviet government was like the person operating the machine. Economic performance shows what the machine can do. It shows that the machine was good, even if the person operating it was bad and used it for the wrong ends. To fix these problems, we need to find a better way of selecting people to operate the machine.

[Bud Struggle]

I think the USSR might have functioned much better if there never was a Stalin. He transformed the country into his demented idea of a totalitarian state--even worse he made it clear that the ideology of the SU was permanantly at war with the Western countries--the USA in particular.

The Cold War that resulted put too much strain on the Communist system. The US was able to have a first rate continual military build up while keeping a high standard of living for its people--that sort of economic power cvould be matched by the soviets--both their post WWII military and economy were second rate to the US--and it was the continual pressure placed on the Soviets to match up by the Americans that caused it to fail.