If you look back to thr beginning of the thread, no, political scientists have developed ways to quantify and compare countries on a range of metrics.
Well, sure, one can make comparisons and use whatever metrics one wishes. But in order to be useful, one would have to compare and quantify the same country on a "before" and "after" basis. What was evident in Russia before the Revolution, and did socialism improve the society? To me, "awful results" would mean that they made the country
worse than it was under the Tsar, but I don't see that as being the case.
But DPRK is part of the subset of socialist states. We could make a similar statement about any state. I didn't say they didn't function at all.
The DPRK is an unfortunate legacy and remnant of the Cold War which exists largely as an anomaly.
Again, I refer you to DPRK - you don't think the lavish wealth he's living in relative to his average citizen looks all that different to the West?
That may be so. I'm afraid I can't explain the actions and policies of North Korea's leadership.
Oh for goodness' sake put down the DSA pamphlet Steve.
I didn't even know what a DSA pamphlet is.
What they have in common is basically a root ideology of individualism. From thence springs both the concept of individual, inalienable human rights as well as the concepts of free economic association.
That may be true of liberalism, though not necessarily capitalism. Capitalism
can and does exist in numerous countries without individual rights or freedoms, although it requires a stronger, military-style government lest it plunge into revolution.
As far as free economic association goes, would you consider the right to collective bargaining included in that?
I don't think capitalism is indispensable to the advancement of science or technology, but I think it strains credulity to believe it provided no impetus. Clearly it was a major driving force, if not the only one.
One could argue that the desire of governments to make war was another major driving force. I've also heard it said that necessity is the mother of invention. Greed has always been a major impetus in many human endeavors, and this was no less true in any of the pre-capitalist societies one could mention.
No, but it does mean that following your suggested alternative is unlikely to address whatever risks there may be.
Well, it seems to me that, as a country, we're already facing certain risks.
I'm not sure where the number 5 comes from there. What about 4? Or 6?
That's not generally how salaries are decided. So it would be a completely novel, and frankly, arbitrary way of assigning such things. I do think CEO salaries have risen much higher than their average worker, but I'm not sure what the right answer to that problem is aside from arbitrary caps.
Well, it's just a hypothetical "what if" question. But you're right, these salaries are determined rather arbitrarily.
You seem to have never talked to an actual capitalist before. Do you think I don't care about what happens to people who lose their jobs? Of course I do. In general, what has happened until now is that when jobs and industries fade, new ones emerge to take their place. So people find new lines of work.
What makes you think I've never talked to capitalists before? Just like lawyers, cops, and politicians, I'm sure there's plenty of nice, decent people among them. I've met some of those, too. But just because there's a few nice cops doesn't mitigate the damage done by the bad ones.
As for your other point, yes, ideally when some industries fade, new ones emerge to take their place. It's not necessarily working out that way for everyone. While I don't read any DSA pamphlets, I do get occasional emails from the Poor People's Campaign, and some of the indicators are a bit grim.
To be fair, some of these industries didn't really "fade." They just moved, and still manufactured with human labor in another country where it's much cheaper.
Tell that to the leaders here in California, who are as progressive as anywhere in the country and can't find a quick and easy solution anywhere in sight.
I can think of a few ideas, although they're probably far too socialistic for even progressives to handle.
This is part of why I tend to see things more from a far-left position. I've talked to a lot of Democrats, progressives, liberals - and they, too, have expressed a great deal of frustration and outrage over a lot of things going on in this country. But they seemingly can't get much done because...Republicans - along with a few conservative-leaning Democrats. That's generally the stock answer that's given, that they'd like to see more done, but there's too much gridlock and political dissension, which has grown steadily these past decades - even before Trump came on the scene.
You think we were further left before the Civil Rights Era when we still had legal segregation? Before the War on Poverty? When the minimum wage was 40 cents/hour? I beg to differ.
What I meant was that the country was steadily moving in a leftward direction, especially in terms of the overall economic growth and the improvements in the standard of living that is evident in the post-war decades. Organized labor was also a lot stronger back in those days. It was because the political climate had changed to such a degree that it was far more favorable towards Civil Rights which allowed that movement to flourish and make enormous strides which had not been seen before in America. By the late 60s, there was even talk of revolution. Idle talk, obviously it never went anywhere, but it was clear that some major changes and breakthroughs had taken place in society.
You're assuming that because they were "common people," they opposed capitalism? That's a major assumption.
I somehow doubt that most people of that era would have even looked at it that way, if they even knew what capitalism was. On the other hand, they might know of factories that employed children to work in them, and some likely opposed that. Some of the more cynical or street-wise among them might have had an inkling about political machines. They might have also heard of snake-oil salesmen and learned to be wary of such types. They might have endured horrific working conditions on railroads or in mines.
That doesn't necessarily mean that they "opposed capitalism," although I doubt many of them would have the same luxury to be able to look at it and discuss it in an abstract way as you and I are doing now.
Of course, there were some educated among them, such as college professors like General Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, who was a literature professor from Maine. He was a staunch Abolitionist, but I'm not sure about his views on capitalism. Though he was a Republican, so I'm guessing he might have been pro-capitalist. He was also elected Governor of Maine after the war. He was quite a hero at Gettysburg. But my sense is that he wasn't fighting for capitalism. My understanding is that he just thought freeing the slaves was just the right thing to do.
This is what I said from the beginning of the thread:
"All the most successful countries are capitalistic. They're certainly regulated in their capitalism and may even have certain socialistic elements. But there is no full-blooded socialist and democratic country today. Nor has there ever been, that I know of."
Okay, fair enough, and to that point, I would say there's no reason there ever should be any full-blooded socialist or full-blooded capitalist country. I think even socialists can be reasonably flexible in this regard.
The world has changed significantly, and I think one might argue that capitalism has changed immensely since the bad old days of what it used to be. Likewise, I think views on socialism have also changed, even if there may be some anomalous holdovers like North Korea. But we still need to be concerned about them because they have nuclear missiles capable of reaching the U.S. mainland. It's a pity that his people have to suffer so he can build nuclear missiles and live in the lap of luxury. Nevertheless, we're dealing with this and numerous other rogue leaders, not to mention all the other issues this nation is contending with, both foreign and domestic.
But the bottom line is, I don't think that capitalism should be the be-all and end-all. We might say that the ultimate goal is actually freedom - human, individual freedom to make our own choices and go where we will - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Such a goal doesn't necessarily imply a certain kind of economic system. In any case, I believe it's important to examine all of this within the framework of what we're actually facing now.
I'm not sure what else to say at this point. I think our discussion in this thread has probably run its course, since we're probably just going to start repeating the same points again.
