Did it ever occur to you that societies that call themselves communist or socialist are in fact simply poorly run state capitalist societies. societies which point up the failures of capitalism. Is there a difference say between an oligarchy controlled by corporations and communist governments of The former Soviet Union, Or Communist China. Other than the fact that communists provide more social services. If you think we are not moving toward an oligarchical world then you are not looking very hard.

What countrys do you include in North America? Saying "one of the most impoverished populations in North America" i dont really understand, perhaps a better comparison is accross the whole of the americas. Does anybody know how mexico compares to Central or South America?

Hi all, Everyone seems to have forgotten a key aspect of capitalism's success in E.Asia. It was not laissez-faire, nor neo-liberal - it was explicitly state mediated. Recognising the success of state-mediated development in all (and I mean ALL) of the current OECD states, the developmental elites in East Asia, and especially Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, encouraged the development of domestic industrial sectors. They especially chose those industries whose "technological externalities" would effect the most beneficial spill-overs into the national economy. It is this factor, more than any other, that allowed the development of the "Newly Industrialised Economies". The permissive condition was East Asia's strategic importance to the US in the Cold War as part of its defensive perimetre, which made elites in Washington more amenable to allowing the NICs unparalleled latitude for state-mediated development (unlike the fate that befell Mohammed Mossadegh in the 1950s, Patrice Lumumba, Abdel Karim Kassem in the 1960s, Salvador Allende in the 1970s...). Bruce Cummings, Chalmers Johnson, Giovanni Dosi, Arthur McEwan, Robbie Robertson, and a plethora of other authors and economists corroborate this. So, when talking about capitalism's successes as opposed to those of communism, we have to remember the socio-political contexts. Capitalism is not and has never been one homogeneous entity, not in the industrialised West and definitely not outside of it. Its successes have always been state mediated - from the indentured markets and captive raw material sources of British imperialism to Alexander Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures" in the US' early developmental history. So even if capitalism is, or is part, of the answer to underdevelopment, we must acknowledge that laissez-faire capitalism just doesn't work. We must also remember that communism as seen in the USSR and Eastern Europe, and even today in North Korea and Cuba, is state-communism, and does not represent the only alternative to capitalism - indeed, many modern socialists would argue none of these examples even properly represent true socialism. So to argue for laissez-faire, neo-liberal capitalism as a panacea for development, and congruent with humanity's desire for freedom, is disingenuous. To do so ignores capitalism's onerous consequences for people - from murderous strike breaking in the US, up until the 1930s Wagner Act, to the murder of 3000 people in the Kwangju massacre by US-backed South Korean forces in 1980 (a little mentioned footnote in the development of the East Asian NICs). State socialism, like state capitalism, has had many disastrous consequences for humanity. Alternatives do exceed the "communism or capitalism" dichotomy. The first step is to acknowledge the real deficiencies and merits in the systems we already know.

> I acknowledge that most leftists have good > intentions. > > However, socialism hurts people. > Human beings want to be free. Well, like a lot of Brits, I’m free precisely because of socialism. Socialism gave my parents and grandparents the vote, trade union rights, a political party to vote for, an education, a good career (in a 100% state-owned utility), an income, and the opportunity to educate my brothers and me. The prosperous eastern nations seem to thrive on a lot of fairly socialist ideas: protectionism, state intervention, small income inequalities, jobs for life, communitarian ethics and so forth.

Thanks for pointing that out Simon, I somehow missed Pachacutec's earlier comments. He's right of course. Japan’s determination to confront Western hegemony culminated in the 1993 government funded report which gave irrefutable evidence of its industrial and economic development having been largely secured through state interventionist policies. This forced the World Bank to openly acknowledge alternative economic models being partly behind East Asia’s economic success. http://www.jpri.org/publications/workingpapers/wp10.html In Hong Kong, state-owned land and purchase of bulk food supplies from the PRC provided subsidized housing and living expenses for its workforce, resulting in a cheap labour force and economic advantage. Then there’s Kerala, acclaimed to be a successful Communist model where human development was placed ahead of economics. They achieved similar levels of life expectancy, adult literacy, infant mortality and fertility to the US, and record rates of economic growth compared to any other Indian state between 1987 and 1997, have been attributed to its earlier educational development programs. http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/2000/0329india.htm But then in India, isn’t it the case that successive populist governments virtually left them bankrupt and they were forced to make major economic policy reforms between 1991 and 1997 to readdress the cumulative negative effects of over-intervention? Obviously there's no single model of development and in most cases, a mixture of different economic and social development strategies have been pursued. Message was edited by: galaco