Posted on 08/17/2002 4:23:47 AM PDT by Jasonconley
PRAVDA.Ru correspondent Ilya Tarasov interviewed Oleg Shenin, a former member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Currently, Oleg Shenin is one of the leaders of the Council of the Union of Communist parties. This interview is timed to cooincide with the anniversary of the coup d'etat that took place in the Soviet Union on August 19-21 of 1991.
(Excerpt) Read more at english.pravda.ru ...
The standard socialist belief. Capitalism is destined to fail as it will eventually use up all its resources and grow itself out of markets and customers. Never going to happen. New products, new inventions, new ways to solve problems always appear as long as people are free to follow their own path and live their lives as they see fit. And with all things new come new resources and the demands of new markets to be satisfied.
The rearward looking, reactionary nature of the state can never be altered and the forward looking, visionary and innovative nature of the individual should never be constrained. That's why socialism is doomed to fail and capitalism has the best chance for success. Socialism plays to human fear and frailty, while capitalism takes advantage of and focuses human's creative nature.
the forward looking, visionary and innovative nature of the individual should never be constrained. The problem with the innovative nature of an individual is precisely that is NOT always forward-looking.
That's why socialism is doomed to fail and capitalism has the best chance for success. So why is it that is absentin most of the world, and under pressure here, in the States.
Socialism plays to human fear and frailty, No, it plays to human fairness, equity.
If you give a lecture on comparative production systems, you may want to be at least accurate.
It's socialism and central planning that has never worked. It always ends up in tyranny and poverty. No exceptions.
The problem we are seeing with our economy relates to the nature of the boom-bust cycles that are caused by the Federal Reserve. It has nothing to do with any inherent flaws in capitalism, since the monetary system the U.S. is using is fundamentally a socialist invention.
Another book I recommend is "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin. It talks about the Federal Reserve system and how it has served to create constant boom-bust cycles and destroy wealth since the time of it's inception to the present day.
about the Federal Reserve system and how it has served to create constant boom-bust cycles and destroy wealth since the time of it's inception to the present day. And before we had the Fed the economy did not have "boom-bust" cycles?
Does the Fed cause waves in the ocean, too; that is, would the water stay flat if the Fed did not exist?
Are all days in your onw life the same, or are there ups and downs? How are they related to the Fed?
Most importantly, how does your remark relate to anything I said in the previous post?
There simply aren't enough resources left to plunder to reignite socialism in Russia. Like a cancer, socialism has already hollowed out the former USSR. There's nothing left to plunder.
When I state my belief that the state is rearward looking and reactionary, I say that in recognition that the socialist state, as practiced in the USA or anywhere else in the world, does not seem to be innovative at solving problems or creating new technologies or products, and the industries that surround them. Regardless of how often they are elected or their vaulted 5 or 7 year plans, the state is known for creating dependancy and is known for its inefficiency, not innovation and invention. It is known for hampering the individual. (The space program of the 60s and early 70s is perhaps a notable exception.)
I disagree that individuals are not forward looking. Whether one is a farmer or a business person or someone simply planning for their own retirement, one must look forward toward a future goal and PLAN for its attainment and then work the plan. To me, the individual knows best what they want and they are out for their own best interests. If they experience accurate feedback as to the quality of their efforts with regard to working their plan, the individual is more likely to self correct. This mechanism is generally lost in socialism and with it goes efficiency, innovation, and growth.
Socialism is the antithesis of the entreprenural spirit that is the vibrant force of capitalism. Socialism appeals to human frailty and fear. The weak often fear risk, failure, the unexpected, the future, competition, and the myriad of challenges that must be faced. They seek comfort in being cared for by the state. They want to believe that the state will protect them from the unknown and from being taken advantage of, and thus they surrender in what I believe is voluntary slavery. To me, having a "benevolent" state decide what is best for me is loathsome and dangerous. To me, this is against the human spirit, but it appeals to a lesser human nature. It is the easy way. And that is why true capitalism is in absence in most of the world. Even in America.
Socialism is built on a false doctrine of egalitarianism. How is it fair to take from those who produce and give it to those who do not? Moreover, how does one remove the cults of personality and corruption that invariably result? Of course, both socialist and capitalist systems suffer such abuses, but in capitalism it is more easily remedied. In politics, such abuses result in dynasties. In capitalism, they disappear. Capitalism is much better at policing its own. I think the government has value in policing a fair set of rules that allow for free people to conduct business. The government that decides how, when and where business will be conducted is taken the roll of master.
To be fair, a little socialism is probably good for society and my bias is due in large measure to my cultural upbringing. But to hobble the majority to the lowest common denominator, as is done in socialist systems, is to destine the system to failure. The brightest must be allowed to shine and, in so doing, they create the light for the rest. Even if the masses so often despise them for it. As Einstein said: "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."
(Thanks, Bill Gates, for bringing the software I using to write my rant into being. Flaws and all.)
A quick look around some of the former satellite states, shortly after the wall fell, revealed an economic and environmental disaster. The cancer consumed itself. It was a failure. Period. End of story. (hopefully)
There is no demand curve. This is certainly not true. The consumers have a utility function V(q) and realise surplus V(q) - V'(q)q after buying the good in quantity q at the gov't-owned store. P= V'(q) is the (inverse) demand function. For it not to exist, the consumers should not have well-defined preferences --- the issue that is intrinsic to their relationship with the good and has nothing to do with the ownership of the means of production.
My apologies for my not being more clear.
When I state my belief that the state is rearward looking and reactionary, I say that in recognition that the socialist state... does not seem to be innovative at solving problems or creating new technologies or products, and the industries that surround them.
This is the kind of inaccuracy that I mentioned earlier.
Here are a few examples from the archetype of socialism.
The Soviet Russia has almost entirely eliminated illiteracy within the span of one generation. As any good or service, to be produced, it required an industry. That scale of education industry had not existed in the Tsarist Russia; it has been created from scratch and in a very short time.
During WWII, the Soviets purposefully moved almost all surviving industry beyond the Ural mountains, to Siberia. I am not aware of any precedent for a similar move, before or after. That "Siberian industry" was created purposefully, quickly, and is still a backbone of the Russian production system.
Finally, do you recall the massive investments we have made into the space program? They were a part of hysteria that we fell into upon the launch of Sputnik by the Russian. Pretty innovative if you ask me. The free markets of Britain, Germany, Italy, or France are yet even to attempt these innovations.
The Russian MiGs are very good, as any of our pilots will tell you. For their production, zillion of innovations are necessary --- from materials to aerodynamics.
I am sorry to say, but your attribution is false.
Regardless of how often they are elected or their vaulted 5 or 7 year plans, the state is known for creating dependancy Yes, but it is a value judgment as to whether it is good or bad. We, Americans, tend to think it bad.
and is known for its inefficiency, Yes, but, as is the case with all endeavors, there are two criteria for any action, not one: efficiency and effectiveness.
Democracy is very well known to be extremely inefficient in its decision-making precisely because the long-run effectiveness is pursued.
Moreover, because it is the long-run objectives that are pursued we are almost paralyzed, i.e., ineffective, when decisions are to be made quickly. When launching a war, a dictator is much more effective than a democracy, as we painfully witness at the present time.
not innovation and invention. I have already addressed these earlier.
It is known for hampering the individual. Not really: the scum that would never rise to the surface under capitalism, does quite well under communists. I have stated this in the extreme. A more precise statement would be that the low-productivity types are doing much better under socialism, precisely because it is for them that the rest of the population is robbed.
I disagree that individuals are not forward looking. I did not say that they were not: not all of the individuals that are forward looking. Nor does capitalism cures the lack of foresight: how many workers in this country spend $200 to take a course in the local college to stay current with the times --- instead of the trip to the mall for TV set that is an amazing inch bigger than the previous one?
To me, the individual knows best what they want and they are out for their own best interests. I agree with you almost completely, with one exception: "the individual" is singular and "they" is plural. Such use of plural was perpetrated on you by the socialist elite to avoid using "he." I know you do not support such elites, so please stay away from their language-engineering inventions.
Socialism is built on a false doctrine of egalitarianism. I do not think anyone has actually demonstrated the falsehood of this doctrine. Perhaps, you meant that it is inefficient, unfair, or has some other deficiencies.
Moreover, how does one remove the cults of personality and corruption that invariably result? This is a good question, but the cults do not result from socialism but dictatorship. The two are not the same. (To be more precise, the dictatorships emerge where the populous has certain preferences, and those same preferences result in the cult of the dictator.)
Furthermore, we have plenty of cults under capitalism. Jones of Guyana is a salient example.
To be fair, a little socialism is probably good for society I knew you would say that, given the intelligence of your analysis (if I disagree, it only when your points over-reach, in my view).
What you point to is known as the the efficiency-equity dilemma. We all would like some basic fairness and equality --- equity --- in our society. We also want our society to utilize its resources efficiently. Well, the dilemma exists because typically what improves efficiency hurts equity and conversely
Capitalism and socialism are two opposite recipies out of that dilemma. Pure, unbridled capitalism says, "On with efficiency and h-ll with equity." We did not like such capitalism of robber barons, and curbed it in XIX century.
The socialists went further with "On with equity, even at the expense of efficiency." To be truthful, they did not know that this was a dilemma at the time; they thought they would achieve both. We know that equity did indeed improve but, killing incentives, at the expense of efficiency.
Thanks for writing. Regards, TQ.
I do agree with you on the quality of the Soviet aerodynamic engineers. Current designs, such as the Sukhoi Su-27 and the MiG-29 are superb and achieved remarkable levels of agility without using fly by wire or light designs. Additionally, they are aesthetically beautifully designs. Gracefully deadly aircraft. I have always been a fan. However, early Sviet aircraft, in particular the MiG-15, as well as the spunik spacecraft, were more due to WWII German engineering than to innovative Soviet engineering. The same can be said for a lot of the early American space program. The Germans were way ahead of the rest of the world by the end of WWII.
One glaring error I do feel the need to address is in your calling Jim Jones and his fatal adventure in religion a capitalist cult. He was a Christian fanatic. If there is a plausible correlation as to how such a thing somehow arises from capitalism, I unaware of it. Freedom of religion means being free to be an idiot. Got plenty of that going on in religion these days.
I very much respect the Russians and I deeply wish all of the former Soviets and my fellow Americans were committed friends and allies. The fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the Soviet Union were two of the most remarkable and hopeful events that I've witnessed in my life. May the future bring us all closer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.