Socialism is an economic system. Dictatorship is a political system. By definition, dictators (and their philosophical cousins, the oligarchs) have the power to impose whatever economic system they want on a country. The two best examples of this dichotomy are here in front of our eyes.
China is an oligarchy where a small political elite holds vast political power over the majority of Chinese. For decades, they tried the communist economic system, and it was a total failure, just as it was in the USSR, just as it has been everywhere it has been attempted. Then Mao died, and his successor pushed China into a market-driven, capitalist economy. The USSR, was an oligarchy and a communist state, and it fell apart in a humiliating economic and political disintegration. Its prodigy have had widely varying degrees of economic and political reforms, and it is very instructive to look at how those reforms have translated directly into economic gains or losses for each country. Your concern about exploitation of emerging countries is warranted, but exploitation can only be prevented by creating a fair and transparent economic and political environment. China, for all the anecdotal stories of theft of intellectual property, has done a very good job at a macroeconomic level of building a favorable investment climate for foreign business. Venezuela, meanwhile, is busy chasing foreign companies out as fast as it can. Who suffers most? Poor Venezuelans, that's who. On 4/25/06, DRE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not so. > > Well, technically, your right. If we must talk in absolute terms, then no > country has ever succeeded because there has always been some corruption > and > there always will be. > > However, if you look at the record of capitalism in developing countries. > Its clear that the goal is to make as much money as is possible with > little > to no care for the inhabitants of those countries. If by chance they > benefit. Thats fine but essentially irrelevant. > > Then you have to look at the records of all dictators and if you look > closely, some countries that had dictators for long long times are > currently > just as successfull than many of their neighbors. You would think from > your > statments that they would have a hopeless disadvantage but it doesnt > appear > so. Look here at the literacy rates of these geographic areas central > america : http://www.gapyeardirectory.co.uk/centralamerica.aspx and here > south america : http://www.gapyeardirectory.co.uk/centralamerica.aspx > . Can > you spot the countries that have had dictators? They are the ones with > the > highest rates of literacy. > > So, you just cant absolutely say that countries with socialist tendencies > are incapable of redistributing their wealth in favor of their > populations. > > > In fact you can probably say that the bastion of capitalism is in fact > redistributing the wealth to its richest component faster than any other > country out there. > > DRE > > > On 4/25/06, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Not only is that a big "if", history has shown it to be an impossible > > "if". > > > > > > > Sure it does if the govt entities distribute it properly. > > > > > > DRE > > > > > > On 4/25/06, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >> You're right, but you don't solve corruption with Socialism. Shifting > > the > > >> corruption and obscene profit taking from private companies to > > government > > >> entities, doesn't really solve the problem. > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:205467 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
