Ted Re..Secondly, level of socialism determines the degree of incentives. <<<<<
That's like saying hardly pregnant. Either you are or aren't. A blended down socialism isn't socialism anymore.
Marx considered socialism as the stage between capitalism and communism. In other words it was a little bit of both. The Scandinavians probably have more private ownership under their socialistic gov't than Marx would have preferred but that doesn't mean you can't call it socialism.
In Norway, however, there seem to be more incentives to grow and prosper.
Those incentives are are called capitalism.
Harry, the socialistic aspects of the Norwegian economy are paid for by its oil reserves. It means the Norwegians pay less taxes than the Swedes and there is more incentive to create new businesses. Yes, its capitalism within an overlay of socialism. It works for Norway.
As for communism, I don't know how you can make your statement since to my knowledge no country in the world has established an economy based on communism as outlined by K. Marx. <<<<
Many countries started out with Marx in mind, but were forced to try alternatives. Lenin himself, was a strong proponent of Marx, but had to change to save the regime.
They were not forced to try alternatives. The reds and their leaders were unwilling to give up their power to the proletariat....the people like they should of Marx had his say. Communism under the Russian dictators has been a sham...just like democracy and capitalism have been a sham under the Russian presidents of the last ten years. A bad virus got into the Russian soup, starting with the Tsars, and it will take at least a century for the it to be worked out. Frankly, I don't know if the Russians can do it but they are trying.
So I don't think we know what the results would be under a communistic form of gov't and economy
We certainly have had communities based upon Marx; if not the whole country. They haven't been able to grow either.. Go figure.
Which communities based their system of economy and gov't on Marx? As far as I can tell, the ones closest are the socialistic Scandinavians although many of the European countries as well as Canada practice some form of socialism. And the Scandinavians were very successful until they got priced out of the market place by who else...the Americans.
Germany too...my friends who are German get 6 weeks paid vacation, unemployment compensation seemingly forever, the gov't will pay you to stay in school..although higher education in Germany is more rigorous than it is here so I am not sure its such a great deal, etc. The problem once again...how do you stay competitive in a world...an American world....that does not feel its citizens deserve such benefits. Your industries become uncompetitive. Germany has improved productivity and concentrated its industries in high paying, education intensive products. But still they are running into problems and the gov't will have to cut back on the benies.
In fact, I have found that companies which employ one aspect of communism....ownership by employees...companies like SAWS...tend to do very well economically. SAWS was doing so well, it just got bought out.
There is a huge difference between employee ownership, and socialism. And UAL hasn't done well by the way.
Yes to both your comments...I said UAL has not done well but SAWS has. Like anything else, the basic plan has to be set up properly in order for it to work.
ted |
