7 ms·

It's murky because they call themselves communist, but it's in name only. If anything I'd call it state capitalism, where the government is the biggest player i

It's murky because they call themselves communist, but it's in name only. If anything I'd call it state capitalism, where the government is the biggest player in the market, but it's a market nonetheless.

mistermann 9y ago
With benevolent and competent leaders, I believe this is the optimum approach, which is one of the main reasons China will be the undisputed global leader very soon. Obviously this requires ongoing benevolence and competency though.
- ameister14 9y ago
  With benevolent and competent leadership, it's the most efficient approach. Unfortunately, benevolent and competent leadership has never lasted in the history of human civilization. Sooner or later, usually sooner, someone really nasty or incompetent takes over.
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    Like they did in the US therefore capitalism failed it? (No, I am not talking about current politics but economy.)
    - ameister14 9y ago
      I don't really understand your question. I'm saying that if you concentrate power into one person's hands, it's awesome and efficient if that person is competent and benevolent. If he is not, it's really bad. Unfortunately, in the history of the world, there has been no government continuously run by benevolent and competent leaders. The US arguably concentrates too much power into the hands of a single person, but not nearly to the same extent as a centralized and managed economy does. This has nothing to do with capitalism.
      - AstralStorm 9y ago
        Nor does it have to do with communism. Specifically communism does not require nationalisation nor centralization of power. In fact the Marxist roots expect the workers to own and run the factories collectively and resolve conflicts by vote and consensus. The ideology called "communism" in the US is actually national socialism. Not to be mistaken with fascism, but close. (Yes, it is Nazism. Soviet ideology was actually identical.) Alleged soviet collectivism was actually nationalisation.
        ameister14 9y ago
        I wasn't talking about that, though - I was talking about State Capitalism and the efficiency of a concentration of power, responding to a person that said that was the optimal system.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    People should be mindful of the sample size they're dealing with when making predictions based on the history of civilizations.
    - ameister14 9y ago
      Sure...roughly 11,000 years of history, hundreds of cultures and civilizations; that work? Can you find a civilization that has lasted with continuous benevolent and competent leadership? Because I can give you hundreds that haven't.
      - mistermann 9y ago
        > Sure...roughly 11,000 years of history, hundreds of cultures and civilizations; that work? No, not for me to draw conclusions with extreme certainty as so many others do, especially considering the complexity of the systems involved and the unreliability of the historic record. It's certainly not enough data for an arrogantly overconfident position. > Can you find a civilization that has lasted with continuous benevolent and competent leadership? I cannot, hence my usage of the phrase "I believe". To me, it's an interesting idea to ponder, not a showdown.
        ameister14 9y ago
        >It's certainly not enough data for an arrogantly overconfident position. If that is not enough data, I doubt any amount of data is. Interesting ideas to ponder are all well and good, but you're positing that a system of government is the best one and making a fairly outlandish claim about China with absolutely no supporting evidence of such a system being sustainable.
        mistermann 9y ago
        > If that is not enough data, I doubt any amount of data is. I wonder if that same logic holds in medical trials, which are a far more simplistic and controlled study.
  - namlem 9y ago
    If only we had a benevolent, competent AI to run things.
    - ameister14 9y ago
      It'd probably be pretty efficient, but my ideal is as close to the state of nature as possible balanced with the benefits of a human society, so it's not really the way I'd want to go.

mistermann 9y ago

With benevolent and competent leaders, I believe this is the optimum approach, which is one of the main reasons China will be the undisputed global leader very soon. Obviously this requires ongoing benevolence and competency though.

ameister14 9y ago
With benevolent and competent leadership, it's the most efficient approach. Unfortunately, benevolent and competent leadership has never lasted in the history of human civilization. Sooner or later, usually sooner, someone really nasty or incompetent takes over.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  Like they did in the US therefore capitalism failed it? (No, I am not talking about current politics but economy.)
  - ameister14 9y ago
    I don't really understand your question. I'm saying that if you concentrate power into one person's hands, it's awesome and efficient if that person is competent and benevolent. If he is not, it's really bad. Unfortunately, in the history of the world, there has been no government continuously run by benevolent and competent leaders. The US arguably concentrates too much power into the hands of a single person, but not nearly to the same extent as a centralized and managed economy does. This has nothing to do with capitalism.
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      Nor does it have to do with communism. Specifically communism does not require nationalisation nor centralization of power. In fact the Marxist roots expect the workers to own and run the factories collectively and resolve conflicts by vote and consensus. The ideology called "communism" in the US is actually national socialism. Not to be mistaken with fascism, but close. (Yes, it is Nazism. Soviet ideology was actually identical.) Alleged soviet collectivism was actually nationalisation.
      - ameister14 9y ago
        I wasn't talking about that, though - I was talking about State Capitalism and the efficiency of a concentration of power, responding to a person that said that was the optimal system.
- mistermann 9y ago
  People should be mindful of the sample size they're dealing with when making predictions based on the history of civilizations.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    Sure...roughly 11,000 years of history, hundreds of cultures and civilizations; that work? Can you find a civilization that has lasted with continuous benevolent and competent leadership? Because I can give you hundreds that haven't.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      > Sure...roughly 11,000 years of history, hundreds of cultures and civilizations; that work? No, not for me to draw conclusions with extreme certainty as so many others do, especially considering the complexity of the systems involved and the unreliability of the historic record. It's certainly not enough data for an arrogantly overconfident position. > Can you find a civilization that has lasted with continuous benevolent and competent leadership? I cannot, hence my usage of the phrase "I believe". To me, it's an interesting idea to ponder, not a showdown.
      - ameister14 9y ago
        >It's certainly not enough data for an arrogantly overconfident position. If that is not enough data, I doubt any amount of data is. Interesting ideas to ponder are all well and good, but you're positing that a system of government is the best one and making a fairly outlandish claim about China with absolutely no supporting evidence of such a system being sustainable.
        mistermann 9y ago
        > If that is not enough data, I doubt any amount of data is. I wonder if that same logic holds in medical trials, which are a far more simplistic and controlled study.
- namlem 9y ago
  If only we had a benevolent, competent AI to run things.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    It'd probably be pretty efficient, but my ideal is as close to the state of nature as possible balanced with the benefits of a human society, so it's not really the way I'd want to go.