In contemporary World politics since the world war, the polarization was based on two evolved systems of Capitalism and communism, which waged trade wars based on those ideologies. Though it has not ended but not that explicit rather focused now on the market search and capture for profitable gains.
In capitalism, big factories and businesses are in private ownership, control. Since for them political decisions are crucial they also control politicians, media, and public information and opinion. What the people know, think, and vote for is controlled by them. So far no real democracy. Wars for war profiteers, exploitation worldwide including the own country.
Socialism: big factories and businesses are in
the peoples' ownership. Government and media rise from real democratic
elections, that is not manipulated by capitalists since they no longer exist.
Who runs the government is actually no longer important since capitalist
interests can no longer be served. So any somewhat suitable is good enough since the interest of the people is the only thing that can be targeted
regardless of who rules. (except, if some want to re-install capitalism!)
Communism: Same as above, but in addition, no
money as means of exchange and value or wealth accumulation. Due to long
Socialism period before was it was for generations impossible to exploit
others and having advantages in being egoistic etc. such in-human capitalist
behavior did die off. People like to work for others and for fun. Want to be
loved by others. Anybody does what he can do best for society and anybody
takes from society what he needs. This may reach from working hard to
stopping working and make education, rest or whatever. Anything that is good
for the individual and society counts. Individuals are badly required for
injecting new ideas into the society, according to their individual capacities
and strength -be it hard repetitive work, wisdom, ideas, convincing others …
finally any capacity in any respect. And the state organization is widely
dissolved and taken over by the responsible and able people who have learned how
to effectively organize themselves.
4. “Did capitalism defeat communism ?” The answer, “No, of course not.” There never was a “system” called “capitalism” that existed, and a figment of the imagination can hardly defeat anything.
5.
What has happened in
the world over the last two centuries, very (VERY !) briefly, is: that top-down
control of “things” - nations by Kings, and the natural world by God, and the
economy by large Corporations, which had been the pattern for the last, say,
one quarter to half a million years, was inverted, to be replaced with a bottom
up, or “grassroots” control of the same “things,” so that Royal authority was
harnessed by democratic government, (still very imperfect, but slightly
better,) Divine Providence and the seven-day ready-made/IKEA/”mudpies and add the puff of life” creationism was replaced with Darwinian evolution by Natural
selection, and Corporate bosses, (or “Captains of Industry” as they were called
then,) were seen to be under the thumb of their customers, who really “call the
shots” - i.e. it is the little shots rather than the big shots who determine
what succeeds in the markets.
6.
Now all these changes
met with some disbelief, and no little resistance, especially from the bodies,
(as Kings/Emperors/Churches/Boards of Trade/Ministries of Commerce/ you know,
the “old gang” ) who were the natural receptacles within which this time
honored traditional attitudes were maintained, so the change took a little
while. We are still trying to digest this. But then, when it comes to changing
a thought process, two hundred years is quite quick. Some of us have “got it” -
had got it generations ago: but some are still fighting a brisk rearguard action,
and refuse to accept the changes involved. Both “Capitalism” and “Communism” are
part of the old-style paradigm - “We, the enlightened ones, will have to look
after the interests of the poor, uneducated masses,” - with just a little
squabbling over just who is “enlightened” and who is the reactionary
stick-in-the-mud: I will not add to that row. Both will be swept aside by the a new paradigm, but only when the defenders of the old have died out - they will
never be persuaded.
7. Not bad! though I say it myself. Two hundred
years in two paragraphs, VERY brief. Goodbye “causal chain,” hallo dispersed
field effects. No more mass, just individuals. Determinacy out, indeterminacy
in.
8.
Pure capitalism is
flawed. In capitalism, capital is power. The rich are more resistant to risks
and have more profit opportunities, so in the end, the rich will become richer
and the poor will become poorer.
9.
In Britain in the 18th
century, workers had to work 20 hours a day in order to survive, and many of
them would die tragically before the age of 40. This is the result of pure
capitalism.
10.
What we see today as
capitalism in the West is reformed capitalism or welfarist capitalism. The
government restricts the behavior of capitalists through a regulatory system
and subsidizes the poor through taxes. This is a fragile balance, and when
regulation is relaxed, we will see evil results. In the COVID-19 epidemic,
ordinary people are spending their savings to make ends meet, while
billionaires are enjoying a carnival in the stock market.
11.
Is capitalism a good
thing? It brought about the industrial revolution, the Internet, consumer
society, and globalization. The life we enjoy today can be attributed to
capitalism to some extent.
12.
But if capitalism is a
good thing, why is the American working class angry? Why are the British
Brexit? Why do Africans die in order to obtain "blood diamonds"?
13.
As for communism, we
have never seen communism actually appear in any country. Marx gave the premise
(not the result) for communism: extremely high social productivity and
extremely high moral standards. He imagined that in a communist society, people
work not to make more money to make you feel better in front of your neighbors but to achieve life values and lofty ideals. No matter which countries the Soviet
Union, China, Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea claim they are, they have never
reached the universally recognized "extremely high social productivity and
high moral standards."
14.
The premise of
communism mentioned by Marx is also the basis for critics' opposition: human
beings always have a selfish and immoral side, so it is unrealistic idealism to
expect everyone to work for ideals instead of money.
15. Capitalism or communism, I can't tell which is
better.
Capitalism is having a
short-term and illusionary victory. Champions of capitalism are falling in
Europe and around the world. The United States is $23,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooo.oo in
national debt. You call that thriving? I call it a chicken with its head cut
off still running around the barnyard causing chaos. Communists societies in
countries like Australia for example where they had communism for 60000 years,
and did not leave their children in massive debt, did not destroy their planet,
to survive that long, the US is 250 years old. causing a mass global extinction,
running out of oil which their entire economy is built around, burning
explosive fuels for energy like cavemen, and thinking they’re advanced, their
debt-based currency is making slaves of them all and their debt is
astronomical. This is not long-term success. Their economic system is not
sustainable, unlike a communist model which for most of human history in most
societies has been.
t’s relevant to the
extent, some countries are still based on communism. China is now allowing
private ownership of commerce, but they still have tight control. It’s still
not a ‘free market.’
One of the biggest issues
confronting the global trading system is currently working its way through the
dispute settlement process at the World Trade Organization (WTO): should China
be classified as a “non-market economy” (NME) for purposes of assessing
antidumping duties?
Three of the WTO’s
heavyweights—the United States, the European Union, and Japan—say yes. They
argue that widespread distortions in China’s economy make it impossible to
investigate whether its firms are exporting goods at below “fair value.” The
NME designation would allow them to use prices from a third country, which
typically leads to the imposition of even higher antidumping (AD) duties.
China responds that its
economy meets the generally accepted definition of a market economy in most
antidumping cases. It also argues that the United States and other major
trading nations agreed when China entered the WTO in 2001 that the NME label
would no longer be applied to China after 2016.
The practice of labeling
countries as NMEs for antidumping purposes go back to the Cold War era. In
the 1960s, the WTO’s predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT), accepted certain member nations from the Soviet Bloc, such as Poland,
Romania, and Hungary, which were still communist but had carved out trade
policies that were more independent from the Soviet Union.
Calculating the “fair” market
price of a good is virtually impossible in a centrally controlled economic
system devoid of market prices and private allocation of resources. An
interpretive note to the GATT Article VI covering
antidumping duties recognized that comparing prices to determine if goods were
being “dumped” would be difficult “in the case of imports from a country which
has a complete or substantially complete monopoly of its trade and where all
domestic prices are fixed by the State.” This accurately describes the
economies of the Cold War Soviet bloc countries, but not China in 2019.
After four decades of reform,
China today falls far short of a free-market economy—but it has also come a
long way from central planning where the government controls prices and
production. The reforms have gone furthest in the manufacturing sector, where
AD cases are the most relevant. In 2014, China expert Nicholas Lardy concluded, “It’s more accurate to think of [China] as a market
economy. The role of the state has diminished dramatically from where it was 20
to 30 years ago. When you look at the number of people employed by the state,
it’s less than France as a percentage of the labor force. China’s not a pure
market economy, but it’s very hard to find pure market economies these days …”
Although China has backslid on some reforms since then, its economic model has
not fundamentally changed.
The core weakness of the NME the approach is that the nations of the world do not categorize neatly into
“market” or “non-market” economies; most fall along a spectrum between those
two poles.
The US Department of Commerce
currently labels 11 countries as NMEs: Belarus, Georgia, the Kyrgyz Republic,
the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of
Azerbaijan, the Republic of Moldova, the Republic of Tajikistan, the Republic
of Uzbekistan, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and Turkmenistan. In the
past, some countries designated as NMEs were then converted to market economies
(MEs), such as Poland (1993), Russia (2002), and Ukraine (2006).
The duties the United States
imposes on China because its NME status has increased over time. In many
cases, these antidumping duties are higher than the duties on another trading
partners. An analysis in
2016 by the Peterson Institute found that the average antidumping duty imposed
on cases involving China was 81.4 percent, whereas the average antidumping duty
imposed on cases involving other trading partners was 54.3 percent.
In my view both the systems are now left in the curriculum studies to understand the difference. The Communist economy was a closed economy but now with the passage of time, it has opened its doors for investment and growth while the capitalist also wants to take advantage of their trade with any country of the world for their own profitable gains. Thus the main focus of the two systems is to make a profitable venture through business expansions with the support of multinationals and international brands which regulate the laws of the host country.
It is still relevant because it is the fight for individual rights against state control of the individual. Against “group rights”.t is still relevant because it is the fight for individual rights against state control of the individual. Against “group rights”.
.jpg)
0 Comments