Thread: Каддафи хотел заменить доллар золотом

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I would say let the people decide what they need and in what quantities.

That's because you are extremely suspicious against "the state" and I believe the state can be good.
I'd say 'let's force people to consume less, before it is too late... " We have only one planet.
I'd trust the state a lot more than I trust a privately owned company to take decisions about how much people can consume anyway. Corporations will always choose the most profitable option over the most moral or ecologically sustainable.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Huh? When? There were times that LOTS OF PEOPLE died from hunger in the Soviet Union. Are you talking about the 1980s?

Yes, I was talking about modern times 60s, 70s, 80s.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

How many starving people there were in the US at that time? How many hadn't had roof over their head (and not on any kind of the relief like Welfare)?

Plenty, Depression and general poverty in the South and other rural areas. Plus, the USA was richer at the time that the revolution happened in Russia, so the starting points are not the same. Additionally, the USA was not annihilated by the war like large parts of the USSR were.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Don't get me started. The planned economy implies the exploitation of everybody by the state.

Well the IDEA is that the state is the people, right? So it's exploiting itself in that case, which can be argued, is fair.
It just depends on how you look at it.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

As to the globalism... have you ever heard the USSR was a country which purpose was to become global? Have you ever heard about the World Revolution?

Yes, but not for the purpose of "liberating people" etc, etc as far as I know. It wanted to be global, but for totally different reasons than the kind of capitalism that the US represents. Plus I think the USSR was fairly realistic about the "world revolution".

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I'm not sure you're familiar enough with Lenin's publications. )

Not familiar with them at all - what is the relevance? I only know that he made some modifications to communism to fit Russia's situation, and thereby deviated a bit from what Marx had envisaged - and some people who were communists rejected the USSR because of it. Other than that I only know a few one liners that he allegedly said in his speeches.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

We have a fundamental disagreement here. I mean, do you at all support the cause of the free trade? Did you have a chance to read Adam Smith and other classical economy guys?

Yes I have read Adam Smith and other economic philosophers and I think Smith's writings have been hijacked by modern liberalists who are using it to further their own agenda. Fundamentally I think he has many good points. Unfortunately it was over 15 years ago that I read him and my memory of it is a bit hazy.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Why? Have Karl Marx ever mentioned the golden standard is the must?

I have no idea what he thought of it, if anything. I am not a Marxist. I just personally think that money that is based on real value is safer than money which can be manipulated to serve an individual country's needs

Originally Posted by Hanna

That's because you are extremely suspicious against "the state" and I believe the state can be good.

Well, we have different experiences. By the way Ramil is so suspicious with "the state" that he wants to eliminate it all together. I maintain a much more moderate standpoint. You see, speaking in the IT terms, if the state controls everything, you might compare it to the mainframe with the resource-sharing OS: in theory it could manage the resources efficiently because it has a planner (=scheduler), but it has the known disadvantages as well. One of the very noticeable consequence is that the sysadmins become very arrogant and you have to get their approval on pretty much anything you need. Also, all kinds of upgrades are very problematic and are naturally postponed as long as possible on the ground of the unknown consequences and the single point of failure. Regardless of the initial design, the mainframe systems become very expensive and unproductive comparing to the distributed systems. On the contrary, in the distributed environment it might seem like the waste of the resources, however the overall stability is better, the average users are more educated and could do some administrative tasks, they could take risks and upgrade and customize their personal systems (with some risks and failures) and thus improve their performance contributing to the overall system performance. The net result is that over time the overall output of the distributed system would outperform the large, centric system. Of course, that is only visible when you could compare the two systems over time. That's why the World Revolution was required. That's why the USSR became specialized in weapons design and production (and sports). Everything that could improve its chances to spread globally, eliminate the competitive systems and become the sole monopoly over the globe. The sysadmins would decide what your account needs and what it doesn't need. They would easily allocate more CPU and disk quotas for those they like and wouldn't for those they dislike. You would be obliged to work with the old text version of Emacs for the rest of your life, because the sysadmins think it's enough for you. No laptops at home or at the coffee-house, no GUI, no mouse, no context-menu right-clicks, no icons. It would be the small monochromatic text monitor and Esc-X-K / Esc-X-Y for the rest of your life. I don't like that. Do you?

Originally Posted by Hanna

Plenty, Depression and general poverty in the South and other rural areas.

Apples with apples, remember? Depression in the South at the 80s? An average of family of five people (two elders, a young couple, and a child) in a one-bedroom apartment in Washington and New York? The devastation of the kolchoz where the majority of the young people either left for the cities (and took them a lot of efforts and bribes because officially they weren't entitled to move anywhere!) or became chronic alcohol addicts because they had no prospects in their lives? The wheat was purchase (for gold - yes! - the ruble was supported by the golden standard, but did it help people to be richer?) from Canada. Why the USSR rural areas of the great country (sport-wise and weapons-wise) failed to produce enough food? Try to compare that with the "devastation of the rural areas in the US" at the same time - the 80s. Then you'll get apples with apples.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Plus, the USA was richer at the time that the revolution happened in Russia, so the starting points are not the same. Additionally, the USA was not annihilated by the war like large parts of the USSR were.

OMG. Again the same thing. Compare the East Germany with the West Germany. The North Korea with the South Korea. Previously, the same countries. By the 80s, there were a couple of decades past the devastation of the war. I would say, provide the better living conditions, build better cars and not so many excellent tanks (truly the state of the art) and don't blame the devastation of the previous war. The war was also in Germany, England, Spain, Italy, France, Holland, Japan. By the 80s the Soviet Union imported goods from all of them and only exported natural resources. And gold.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Well the IDEA is that the state is the people, right?

Wrong. The corporation is the people, right?

Originally Posted by Hanna

So it's exploiting itself in that case, which can be argued, is fair. It just depends on how you look at it.

Regardless of the way you look at it, it's the officials in either case. The state officials have more power than the corporate officials (or, perhaps, it's the same thing). So, no fairness in either case. However, the capitalism also allows other people (not only the officials) to live well. Make your informed decision.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Yes, but not for the purpose of "liberating people" etc, etc as far as I know.

For the exact same purpose. The exact same liberation/freedom rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Hanna

It wanted to be global, but for totally different reasons than the kind of capitalism that the US represents.

Yes, and I think I mentioned earlier the reasons. But the net result is the same, so why would the ordinary people care?

Originally Posted by Hanna

Plus I think the USSR was fairly realistic about the "world revolution".

Not only realistic, but very practical. That's why they called it the Cold War, my young padawan learner.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Not familiar with them at all - what is the relevance?

As much as Marx was the theoretician, Lenin was the practitioner. He explored with the trial and error what worked and what not. That had tremendous implications for the development course of the Communism. The "deviation from what Marx had envisaged" happened because Marx hadn't had the situation at hand and was only able to make some theoretical predictions, but didn't have the power to practically try it. And what Marx had envisioned had never happened. So, his sound scientific theory was falsified by that and therefore remain what it is - a scientific model of the past that became obsolete by the newer discoveries. Lenin's publications are much more important than Marx's.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Yes I have read Adam Smith and other economic philosophers and I think Smith's writings have been hijacked by modern liberalists who are using it to further their own agenda. Fundamentally I think he has many good points. Unfortunately it was over 15 years ago that I read him and my memory of it is a bit hazy.

It's interesting that you don't really remember that he was advocating the really free trade - like no tariffs, no barriers, no protectionism whatsoever, essentially one of the fundamental aspects of the globalisation, but you do remember his writings have been hijacked by modern liberalists. Yeah... Apparently, all it takes to forget one of the brightest minds is just 15 years. Sic transit gloria mundi...

Originally Posted by Hanna

I have no idea what he thought of it, if anything. I am not a Marxist.

Oh, I was under impression that you are based on the fact you liked the Socialism and stuff like that. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Than who are you? Do you support the notion of the private property? Do you support the notion of the exploitation of a person by a person?

Originally Posted by Hanna

I just personally think that money that is based on real value is safer than money which can be manipulated to serve an individual country's needs

Would you be able to clarify what you mean by the "real value"? I mean, I'm aware of only two fundamental definitions of value: the subjective one and the one defined in the labour theory. Gold is not a requirement in either of those, but a commodity as much as wheat or sugar used to clear open balances. So, what "real value" are you talking about?