What's the difference between this and Communism?

[blazespinnaker]

China has state sponsored companies ... and the US has state sponsored companies.

By proxy, the US is sponsoring all the companies that the banks and money market funds are sponsoring.

Welcome to the future.

Here's a news link:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...bF8&refer=home

It's more like socialism. Anyways, c'est la vie I guess. Ironic, though, france doesn't have to bail anyone out here.

[don]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

China has state sponsored companies ... and the US has state sponsored companies.

By proxy, the US is sponsoring all the companies that the banks and money market funds are sponsoring.

Welcome to the future.

Communism claims everything is done for the people.

Even our spinmeisters won't go that far....

[ASH]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

China has state sponsored companies ... and the US has state sponsored companies.

By proxy, the US is sponsoring all the companies that the banks and money market funds are sponsoring.

Welcome to the future.

I know you weren't looking for an entirely serious, or broad-ranging answer, but here are some observations about remaining distinctions:

Communism gives you single-party rule, with the capacity for long-range planning, but at the price of excessive, unchecked corruption at lower levels. The long-term continuity of top leadership, and the lack of checks and balances, also means that policy linked to specific personalities has greater inertia. The lack of freedom of political expression creates a less stable equilibrium -- repression means that the decision to oppose the government is also the decision to break the law, which means public discontent endangers the very foundation of society rather than its immediate rulers. Finally, because rule is not representative, policy does not necessarily reflect the motives of the people, but rather of those who govern. The people's interests enter into it only when the leadership calculate that their rule is threatened by widespread public discontent.

American representative democracy gives you two-party rule, with no capacity for long-range planning, but with a mechanism to limit overt corruption. The lack of continuity in executive leadership somewhat improves the agility of policy intentions, as does the responsiveness of the legislature to short-term populist concerns. (This agility of intentions is offset somewhat by the institutional inertia of the major federal bureaucracies with respect to implementation of policy.) Freedom of political expression provides an important safety valve for public discontent. As long as the majority of citizens perceive a substantive difference between the two major parties, they believe they have a means of effecting change within the context of the law, and therefore their discontent is not a danger to society's stability. Finally, despite what cynics might say, the representative nature of our democracy ensures that the leadership will try to give the people what the people think they want.

[c1ue]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

I see your:

with a mechanism to limit overt corruption

Raise you Halliburton in Iraq. Banks and securitization. Hell, Whitewater.

The lack of continuity in executive leadership somewhat improves the agility of policy intentions, as does the responsiveness of the legislature to short-term populist concerns.

Bush, Clinton, Bush. Adams and Adams. Roosevelt and Roosevelt. Kennedy and (assassinated) Kennedy. And that's just the Presidency.

Go into the Senate and it REALLY gets ugly.

Even the Soviet Union never had premiers/general secretaries which were from the same families.

As for responsiveness of the legislature: do you really think there is no populist concern over health care? Where's the response to that?

Freedom of political expression provides an important safety valve for public discontent.

So far, the US hasn't had REALLY tough times - not since the Great Depression. We bought our way out of that one, plus the assistance of a World War plus the 'Red Menace'.

The safety valve feature hasn't been really tested in a long long time.

As long as the majority of citizens perceive a substantive difference between the two major parties, they believe they have a means of effecting change within the context of the law, and therefore their discontent is not a danger to society's stability.

If a majority of citizens perceive a substantive difference between major parties, as well as believe there is a means to effect change, why doesn't the majority of citizens then vote?

Is it perhaps instead that the majority of citizens are apathetic so long as their LCD TVs shine and their SUVs are filled with cheap gas? And that the loonies and extremists - in the demographic sense - are what drive the political process?

Finally, despite what cynics might say, the representative nature of our democracy ensures that the leadership will try to give the people what the people think they want.

This is the message we are told.

But the evidence I see seems more that our leadership is manipulating information to get the people to support what leadership wants.

How many people actually knew enough about Iraq to want to overthrow the government there prior to 1990? How many years of 'commentary' and 'studies' have been aimed toward building support? And why is it that the American people support Iraq so much that the government is afraid to ask for any significant sacrifice on the people's part to do so?

This whole Georgia mess is a wonderful encapsulation of this process.

I actually agree that tossing Saddam out was a worthwhile endeavor, but nonetheless it had nothing to do with the average person and their desires, nor the overall population and its desires.

[jpatter666]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

Hi Ash,
Given your ending comment, I have to respond with H.L. Mencken.... :rolleyes:

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

[ASH]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

Hi Ash,
Given your ending comment, I have to respond with H.L. Mencken.... :rolleyes:

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

Exactly. My post was laced with phrases like "perceive a substantive difference" and "believe they have a means of effecting change".

[ASH]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

I see your:

Raise you Halliburton in Iraq. Banks and securitization. Hell, Whitewater.

I think you and I have been through this one before. My statement was not that corruption does not occur, but that there was a mechanism to limit it. Are you saying that the Chinese Communist Party does a better job of ferreting out corruption within its own ranks than Democratic politicians do ferreting out corruption in Republican ranks (and vice-versa)?

Bush, Clinton, Bush. Adams and Adams. Roosevelt and Roosevelt. Kennedy and (assassinated) Kennedy. And that's just the Presidency.

Go into the Senate and it REALLY gets ugly.

Even the Soviet Union never had premiers/general secretaries which were from the same families.

Not relevant to my argument unless you can demonstrate a continuity of political philosophy independent of party affiliation. Moreover, without consecutive terms, how can you assert continuity of policy intentions? I am not arguing that there is no political class in the United States. I am not arguing that leaders do not spring from the same families. What I am arguing is that the personal philosophy of one man does not span more than 8 years (after FDR, that is).

Regarding the Senate, note that I very carefully used the word "executive leadership". That is because I share your view of the Senate, and think it is highly dysfunctional with respect to turn-over and persistence of individual personalities.

As for responsiveness of the legislature: do you really think there is no populist concern over health care? Where's the response to that?

Most recently, Medicare Part D from the Bush Administration, and healthcare reform plans from both party's candidates.

So far, the US hasn't had REALLY tough times - not since the Great Depression. We bought our way out of that one, plus the assistance of a World War plus the 'Red Menace'.

The safety valve feature hasn't been really tested in a long long time.

Quite true. Are you arguing that this safety valve did not function in the past, or that it is a false mechanism? The way I see it, we got labor laws and social programs instead of a communist revolution, because we are a democracy and Russia was an inflexible autocracy. Simply arguing that a safety valve exists is not an argument that it has infinite capacity. I share your concerns about what happens if it is truly tested. However, my post was about differences between different political systems, and I maintain that this is a valid distinction.

If a majority of citizens perceive a substantive difference between major parties, as well as believe there is a means to effect change, why doesn't the majority of citizens then vote?

Is it perhaps instead that the majority of citizens are apathetic so long as their LCD TVs shine and their SUVs are filled with cheap gas? And that the loonies and extremists - in the demographic sense - are what drive the political process?

Again, that is exactly correct. In college, this is what I learned in political science classes. Low voter turnout indicates a lack of major concerns, and general contentment. The fact that a majority of citizens see no need for substantive change -- and hence do not vote -- is actually an indication that the system is adequately meeting their needs.

My actual point in the post is that the minority whose needs are not being met by the present system choose to seek change through the political process rather than with torches and firearms. These would normally be the loony and extremist fringes that you identify. And -- they do EXACTLY WHAT I SAID THEY WOULD DO -- they participate in the political process rather than plotting revolution.

Eventually, when the loonies mismanage things to the point that the LCD TVs cease to shine and the SUVs are out of gas, the rest of the population takes notice and gets involved in the political process. The voter turnout increases.

While your observations are true, I fail to see how they run counter to my position. Are you saying that political discontent expresses itself through political processes in Communist countries?

But the evidence I see seems more that our leadership is manipulating information to get the people to support what leadership wants.

How many people actually knew enough about Iraq to want to overthrow the government there prior to 1990? How many years of 'commentary' and 'studies' have been aimed toward building support? And why is it that the American people support Iraq so much that the government is afraid to ask for any significant sacrifice on the people's part to do so?

This whole Georgia mess is a wonderful encapsulation of this process.

I actually agree that tossing Saddam out was a worthwhile endeavor, but nonetheless it had nothing to do with the average person and their desires, nor the overall population and its desires.

I share your view 100% regarding policy in areas about which the average American has little opinion. The leadership has foreign policy goals; the average American does not. The leadership tries to build public support for its foreign policy goals through the information it presents to the public. (Note, however, that a Communist government need not always do this.)

However, when I said that "the leadership will try to give the people what the people think they want", that does not exclude the possibility of the leadership trying to get the people to want what the leadership wants. In terms of social programs and benefits, by and large, it is the people who have goals and the leadership who try to provide what the people think they want.

[WDCRob]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

The difference is obvious. Communism is when the bad guys do it and we don't like it.

[D-Mack]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

Didn't Wall Street finance the Bolshevik Revolution ?

http://www.amazon.com/Street-Bolshev...1851859&sr=8-2

[VIT]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

Quote:
Again, that is exactly correct. In college, this is what I learned in political science classes. Low voter turnout indicates a lack of major concerns, and general contentment. The fact that a majority of citizens see no need for substantive change -- and hence do not vote -- is actually an indication that the system is adequately meeting their needs.

To ASH:
I would not agree. In many cases it means that people do not see the difference between two evils. Take Ukraine as example. The elections and political struggle there is nothing more then fight for personal/groups economic interests. Why to vote if the only difference will be who owns some enterprises.

What you describe is the ideal model but particular instances in reality are much different.
The same with communism. Do not look on particular instances like China and USSR, communism is more economical-social system which have been described by Karl Marx, Lenin. I do not think that communism itself says it should be one party but this is the way it can be functional since otherwise some populists (which might be even worse ) take the lead.

[ASH]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

To ASH:
I would not agree. In many cases it means that people do not see the difference between two evils. Take Ukraine as example. The elections and political struggle there is nothing more then fight for personal/groups economic interests. Why to vote if the only difference will be who owns some enterprises.

You have a point. I was really only saying these things about the specific case of America. May I propose a test of that specific case? The electorate clearly has substantial practical concerns for this election, so if turnout is significantly higher than average, I will consider my point to be supported.

[c1ue]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

Are you saying that the Chinese Communist Party does a better job of ferreting out corruption within its own ranks than Democratic politicians do ferreting out corruption in Republican ranks (and vice-versa)?

Not at all. However, the Chinese Communist Party hasn't been pushing Mom, Apple Pie, and the American Way for the last umpteen years.

They've also never pretended to giving a crap about the individual, said individual's liberties, etc.

While there are many things I don't like about China today, I can say that they have been managing the industrialization/FDI process far better than any other entity in history - excluding the original 'first adopters' in Europe.

Moreover, without consecutive terms, how can you assert continuity of policy intentions?

Again this appears to be a time resolution difference.

From my view - reinforced by Dr. Hudson - there has been a very clear continuity of policy intentions. This continuity is both within the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush period, but also in the FDR/Truman epoch.

A brief interlude with Eisenhower, then back with a vengeance with Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon.

Most recently, Medicare Part D from the Bush Administration, and healthcare reform plans from both party's candidates.

A populist response, true. But one heavily modified by the drug companies, and furthermore one which fails to resolve the original problem. I don't see either Medicare D nor 'health care reform plans' as substantive implementation of universally available and affordable health care - do you?

And if it is so difficult, why is it available in so many other places?

Low voter turnout indicates a lack of major concerns, and general contentment. The fact that a majority of citizens see no need for substantive change -- and hence do not vote -- is actually an indication that the system is adequately meeting their needs.

Again, a question of perspective.

When I was younger and less experienced, the world was a happy joyful place - especially as I was young and making lots of money.

Now that I see how those less fortunate live, I understand my previous view was a combination of my class - including education and family support - as well as youth.

The pleasant fiction is that those who don't vote are happy. In fact, the ones who DO vote are the happy ones.

The gang members in Oakland don't vote. The welfare moms might vote if their entitlements are attacked, but don't bother otherwise.

The older people vote - because they grew up in circumstances where discipline was essential to survival and voting is considered a duty. The new immigrants vote - they still believe the line.

As for voting vs. shooting: even in nations with monstrous poverty, there isn't often shooting. The 'ethnic cleansing' we see in Rwanda and Kosovo isn't due to economic warfare but rather tribal warfare.

I'm not sure why an effectively disenfranchised group in the US would necessarily start shooting when the large numbers of homeless dump-scavengers in Brazil aren't.

Clearly it isn't suffering itself that causes revolutions.

As Metalman has pointed out - maybe people are just sheep.

[*T*]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

You've missed the obvious: private ownership vs. public.
I'm no political theorist but crudely, you could form a 2x2 matrix:

_______________privately owned __ | public owned
--------------------------------------------------------
central_______| fascism / _____| communism /
planning______| corporatism __ | socialism
--------------------------------------------------------
decentralised | capitalism __ | anarchism
planning_____ | __________ |

[ASH]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

You've missed the obvious: private ownership vs. public.
I'm no political theorist but crudely, you could form a 2x2 matrix:

_______________privately owned __ | public owned
--------------------------------------------------------
central_______| fascism / _____| communism /
planning______| corporatism __ | socialism
--------------------------------------------------------
decentralised | capitalism __ | anarchism
planning_____ | __________ |

The thrust of the original post was that we were seeing a massive increase in public ownership, so it didn't seem fruitful to draw the distinction. The distinction is, in fact, a real one -- but increasingly one of degree rather than category.

[VIT]

Re: What's the difference between this and Communism?

You've missed the obvious: private ownership vs. public.
I'm no political theorist but crudely, you could form a 2x2 matrix:

_______________privately owned __ | public owned
--------------------------------------------------------
central_______| fascism / _____| communism /
planning______| corporatism __ | socialism
--------------------------------------------------------
decentralised | capitalism __ | anarchism
planning_____ | __________ |

I like the matrix. Apparently we tried everything except anarchism. Just recently I did some reading about anarchism stream in Ukraine during the Russian revolution of 1917.
It was a time when everybody wanted and implemented their own system