Should Communism Be Declared A Criminal Ideology?

[Forty Two]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-30/ ... t/10570820

Over 200 car manufacturers are sending real-time location information and dozens of other data points from electric vehicles in China to surveillance centres backed by the country's government.

As an aside, this is going to be the reality with self-driving, electric vehicles. A massive blow to privacy. Every time we get in a vehicle, the State will know where we are, where we're going, and who we're with, to a very great extent.

[Forty Two]

The fact that something is called "socialist" does not mean it fits the bill. Yugoslavia was called "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", not sure how adequate the name was.

Again - different question. The question I posed was whether anyone supports or advocates any kind of socialism, not whether anyone supports a particular kind of socialism. Whether one or another economic system "fits the bill" is a different question to whether a person advocates or supports a particular economic system or one of several versions thereof.

That's because you are more keen on the label than on the content. But now others have explained the catch better than I could.

It's certainly not me who is concerned about the label. If there is a form of socialism that is the catalyst to economic prosperity and the common good which is superior to the forms of capitalism which have lifted many millions of people out of poverty in the last 30 years, then I'd love to see it.

[Hermit]

If there is a form of socialism that is the catalyst to economic prosperity and the common good which is superior to the forms of capitalism which have lifted many millions of people out of poverty in the last 30 years, then I'd love to see it.

China is the world's largest manufacturing economy and exporter of goods. It is also the world's fastest-growing consumer market and second-largest importer of goods. It's economy has grown by 10% p.a. over the past 30 years. Although its private sector is burgeoning, the state owned sector is still bigger by far. It has the world's largest total banking sector assets of $39.9 trillion. Its current account surplus increased more than twelve-fold between 1982 and 2004, from $5.7 billion to $71 billion. Between 1978 and 2005, China's per capita GDP grew from $153 to $1,284. ( Linkiepoo) Even after taking inflation into account that's a significant hike for its 1.4 billion people

Economically, China will not overtake the US for another 10 to 15 years. It will take an additional 10 to 15 years for it to get the upper hand militarily.

[Forty Two]

....and hasn't that economic growth been a result of economic liberalization in some parts of China, and the fact is that most of the country, living under the boot of socialism, is not actually doing well? Deng Xiaopang, in 1978, started the move to usher in capitalist reforms into China. Deng launched several economic reforms that allowed private sectors to start and operate their own businesses because under socialism, they could not start and operate. He also established four special economic zones along the coast of China with intentions of attracting foreign investments. Special economic zones that allowed capitalism. Due to the reforms Deng put in place, China went from a country that opposed capitalism to one that (in the economic zones) embraced property rights, profits and free market competition.

Through 1993,

controls on private businesses and government intervention continued to decrease, and there was small-scale privatization of state enterprises which had become unviable. A notable development was the decentralization of state control, leaving local provincial leaders to experiment with ways to increase economic growth and privatize the state sector.[14] Township and village enterprises, firms nominally owned by local governments but effectively private, began to gain market share at the expense of the state sector.

In 1997 and 1998, large-scale privatization occurred, in which all state enterprises, except a few large monopolies, were liquidated and their assets sold to private investors. Between 2001 and 2004, the number of state-owned enterprises decreased by 48 percent.During the same period, Jiang and Zhu also reduced tariffs, trade barriers, and regulations; reformed the banking system; dismantled much of the Mao-era social welfare system; forced the PLA to divest itself of military-run businesses;[20] reduced inflation; and joined the World Trade Organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_e ... E2%80%9384

The benefit to China and the Chinese is clearly the result of economic liberalization toward capitalism and freer markets, property and trade.

China's history over the last 80 years shows that it's socialism was the problem, and capitalism was the solution.

[Hermit]

The benefit to China and the Chinese is clearly the result of economic liberalization toward capitalism and freer markets, property and trade.

Mostly clearly really not. I did mention the burgeoning private sector, but I also mentioned that the greater part of China's economy is government owned and run. You'd think if China can average 10% of GDP growth over 30 years while nobbled with the latter, the US economy, being almost wholly based on a privately owned and run economy ought to nudge 20%. It's been around the 3 to 4% mark between 1985 and 2000, however, and averaged 1.7% between 2000 and 2014.

Yeah, but don't drop your ideological blinkers. You'd shit yourself at the prospect of the Chinese building their 25th aircraft carrier around 2050 without running their budget into the red.

[Forty Two]

Really so, 10% growth is easier when you start with the tiny economy they had in 1978. China's GDP in 1978, was about $350 billion and the US GDP in that year was about $2,300 billion - almost 7 times the size, and the US had 1 billion people and the US had 250 million. Thus, China's economy was 1/7th the size of the US and it had 4 times the population. To say the US should have had 20% rate of growth is absurd, because the US was already a mature economy.

China now has about 1.6 billion people and its GDP is about $12 trillion, and the US has about 300 or so million people with a GDP of nearly $20 trillion.

China's growth has been phenomenal, and it's been because of Deng's reforms. This isn't even argued by any economist of any stripe. But, by all means - pretend its' because of their brand of socialism.

[pErvinalia]

....and hasn't that economic growth been a result of economic liberalization in some parts of China, and the fact is that most of the country, living under the boot of socialism, is not actually doing well? Deng Xiaopang, in 1978, started the move to usher in capitalist reforms into China. Deng launched several economic reforms that allowed private sectors to start and operate their own businesses because under socialism, they could not start and operate. He also established four special economic zones along the coast of China with intentions of attracting foreign investments. Special economic zones that allowed capitalism. Due to the reforms Deng put in place, China went from a country that opposed capitalism to one that (in the economic zones) embraced property rights, profits and free market competition.

Through 1993,

controls on private businesses and government intervention continued to decrease, and there was small-scale privatization of state enterprises which had become unviable. A notable development was the decentralization of state control, leaving local provincial leaders to experiment with ways to increase economic growth and privatize the state sector.[14] Township and village enterprises, firms nominally owned by local governments but effectively private, began to gain market share at the expense of the state sector.

In 1997 and 1998, large-scale privatization occurred, in which all state enterprises, except a few large monopolies, were liquidated and their assets sold to private investors. Between 2001 and 2004, the number of state-owned enterprises decreased by 48 percent.During the same period, Jiang and Zhu also reduced tariffs, trade barriers, and regulations; reformed the banking system; dismantled much of the Mao-era social welfare system; forced the PLA to divest itself of military-run businesses;[20] reduced inflation; and joined the World Trade Organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_e ... E2%80%9384

The benefit to China and the Chinese is clearly the result of economic liberalization toward capitalism and freer markets, property and trade.

China's history over the last 80 years shows that it's socialism was the problem, and capitalism was the solution.

China is by a long shot still socialist. And the privatised sectors of the economy don't run via free market principles. They are still protected by tariffs, currency manipulation and beneficial IP arrangements. This is where the term "state capitalism" might be most appropriate for that sector of the economy.

[Forty Two]

Indeed, but it is the capitalism that has benefited them. That is what has caused the economic growth, and the increase in well-being of more Chinese people than ever before. Sure, they're by a long shot still not a completely free market economy - nobody said otherwise. However, the market reforms, the privatization and the freer economic zones are what caused China to improve. This is as established as any "consensus" you can name.

To think that China's socialism kicked into high gear at coincidentally the same time as Deng's capitalist reforms began seems a tad bit .....well, incredible.

[pErvinalia]

Again, it's really about a mix, and tight control of the small capitalist part of their economy. China is definitely an outlier in that their directing of the economy has worked. Most socialist command economies go pear shaped.

[Hermit]

Indeed, but it is the capitalism that has benefited them.

But? I agree that capitalism has benefited the Chinese economy, but again, it's difficult to argue that the government owned and run aspect of the economy has not. I remind you once more about the 10% average GDP growth over a period of 30 years, compared to The US's ♥%.

Are you perchance trying to argue that China does capitalism better than the US? Or maybe that Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama were inveterate socialists?

[DRSB]

I am wondering if they would have flourished if the US had not opened their huge market to their goods. The first time I was in New York was in 1999, it was still glamorous. Last time I was was in 2011, I did not do any shopping, the Americans looked like they dressed by pulling down something from the stands on the flee market, not checked for size or fit, the materials looking very Chinese in the sense of low quality. 5th Av looked like a fast food high street, no glitter or glamour whatever. Meanwhile though, the quality has caught up with the quantity, "Made in China" is no longer a synonym for garbage. It is happening very quickly, despite the socialism, 42!

[laklak]

As an aside, this is going to be the reality with self-driving, electric vehicles. A massive blow to privacy. Every time we get in a vehicle, the State will know where we are, where we're going, and who we're with, to a very great extent.

Mrs. Lak and I will be safe in Swaziland. I've seen how Swazis run things like the electric grid, satellite TV, traffic lights, restaurants, road works, government offices, and, well, pretty much everything else. I can state with a very high degree of certainty that any sort of State surveillance system would 1) sorry, she is broked, 2) eish, the only one who can fix it is in South Africa, and 3) Hau, angazi baba, I don't know.

[rainbow]

However, in socialist countries - those with the State owning and/or controlling the means of production by and large, what is equality like there? Was there greater "equality" in communist Soviet Union? Communist Cuba? Socialist Venezuela? Is that "equality?"

Only a complete twat would believe that your examples of State Capitalism equate to Socialism.

By definition if a system allows elites to hold privileges not available to the masses then it isn't "Socialist".

...no matter what the systems may call themselves

Only a complete twat thinks Cuba, Venezuela or the Soviet Union weren't capitalist? LOL. Look, Venezuela was hailed a shining example of socialism, until it imploded.

Sez who?
You, not me.

[rainbow]

As an aside, this is going to be the reality with self-driving, electric vehicles. A massive blow to privacy. Every time we get in a vehicle, the State will know where we are, where we're going, and who we're with, to a very great extent.

Mrs. Lak and I will be safe in Swaziland. I've seen how Swazis run things like the electric grid, satellite TV, traffic lights, restaurants, road works, government offices, and, well, pretty much everything else. I can state with a very high degree of certainty that any sort of State surveillance system would 1) sorry, she is broked, 2) eish, the only one who can fix it is in South Africa, and 3) Hau, angazi baba, I don't know.

There is no country called Swaziland.

[laklak]

Sure there is. Right next to Rhodesia.