Why Dictators Can't Be Capitalist.

Definition of Capitalism:

An economic system controlled cheifly by individuals and private companies instead of by the government. In this system,individuals and companies own and direct most of the resources used to produce goods and services. Such resources include land and other natural resouces,labor and capital.

Capitalism stresses private economic choices. People are free to decide how they will earn and spend their money. Companies may choose wich goods and services to produce and how much to charge for them. Capitalism is often called "free-enterprise" because it allows people to engage in economic activities largelly free from government control.


Definition of Dictatorship:

A form of government where an indivdual or a committee holds absolute power. Once in control diactators retain their positions through force or the threat of force. They get rid of, or closely control the legislature,and quikly suppress freedeom of speech,assembly and the press. Dictators manipulate and control the economy to only benefit themselves and their followers.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Basically a dictator can't be a Capitalist for the simple fact that the definitions of both or clearly opposed to each other.

People sometimes point out the dictators that were supported by America and the west as if these dictators were pro-Capitalism. They weren't, because if you look at how these dictators ran their countries they probably violated many of the things that makes capitalism what it is.

Batista in Cuba more than likley violated many of the rules of capitalism. In south Africa under Aparthied, it was the same, because capitalism was limited to whites only. Blacks weren't allowed to be capitalist in South Africa under Aparthied, and this again goes against Capitalism's emphases on people being able make their own economic decisions largely free from government control.

So going by capitalism's and dictatorship's actual definition, you will see that diactators and oppressors in general, are actually anti-capitalist because they violate and interfer with all individuals being able to benefit from a free market.

 

I don't think the two are necessarily contradictory. While a dictator may have absolute power, he may choose to let the market take its course rather than interfere with it.

Hong Kong is an example of a capitalist dictatorship.

 

" A lot of people -- including Clinton, Gore & Bush -- say that we should promote China's economic growth despite their atrocious dictatorshiop because an improved economy will cause the downfall of the dictatorship."

http://www.issues2000.org/askme/hongkong.htm


Some people believe that with China becoming more capitalist that this will eventually bring an end to, or transform China's government. It'll be intersting to see if this will happen.

From what I've read on China, the government has freed the economy,but still has a lot of control over people's personal lives. I would think that this control over people's personal lives will have some nagative impact on the economy as far as more Chineses being able to fully benefit form China's capitalism?

 

I think it's very likely that China will be a liberal democracy in 15 years. The 2008 Olympics in Beijing may be an important opportunity for the Chinese government to put on its best face for the rest of the world, including reforming some of its authoritarian practices. I doubt the Chinese government will completely collapse Soviet-style, but I wouldn't be surprised if it evolved into something better.

That's pretty accurate.

I don't know...I think it'll be the other way around; China's capitalism will have a positive impact on civil liberties and civil rights. With capitalism comes a strong economy and a higher standard of living. With a higher standard of living (especially in a country as tech-savvy as China) comes greater access to communications, and as a result more human rights.

If you look at the countries with the highest GDP per capita, almost none of them are dictatorships. Hong Kong is the lone exception, and even there the people have significantly more rights than in China proper. I think it's very unlikely that China will be able to remain so authoritarian while closing the economic gap with modernized nations.

 

Sorry, Kandahar. China is not going to be so soon a democracy without a revolution.
1) Chinese capitalism is only a partial capitalism, still controled by the state.
2) The so called Chinese capitalists came from the ranks of the communist party. There are no independent capitalists and no real competition between chinese companies, outside government control. And the revenues of the average Chinese remains very low. Actualy China is getting back to an oligarchy as it was before 1949, or, if you know better the model, toward a Latin American style society based on the great private property of a few, with a very poor population.
3) There is no liberation mood between the chinese communists. They still follow Deng Xiaoping's doctrin which was to save the dictatorship through economical change, seeing that marxist economy is doomed.
4) The Olympics will change as much as the Berlin Olympics changed the third Reich or the Moscow 1980 Olympics changed the USSR.

But, on the other issue, high developped capitalism and dictatorship can coexist. Remember Hitler's Germany?

 

What a shitty definition of capitalism... whered you get that? make it up yourself?

Dont make me list the many capitalist dictatorships in the world.

You seem to have a very bad concept of what a "political ideology" and an "economic ideology" are... Capitalism is only an economic ideology, same with communism... Both are suseptable to any form of government, be it dictatorship, democracy, republic.

The way governments treat people and handle laws are called politics, the way they manage $$ is economics... Capitalism is economics only... Blending the two just makes you look like an idiot.

 

Please tell me when china had a marxist economy? Never.
Mao.

 

This is true...but considering it was a Stalinist state less than 25 years ago, I'd say it's doing a pretty good job reforming its economy. It's not controlled by the state any more than, say, Swedish capitalism is.

What makes you say that? China is a very competitive market from everything I have read.

The GDP per capita is indeed low...but it is rapidly increasing (much faster than almost any other country).

This is unlikely to happen, with industrial hubs like Shanghai where the standard of living is as high as it is in New York. And with a higher standard of living comes better access to communication.

Regardless of the mood of the government, the Chinese people may force them to change their mind (though not necessarily through violent revolution). The Great Firewall of China can't possibly last more than another five years, and when it falls the Chinese people will have access to a vast amount of information that their government has hidden from them.

If you will remember correctly, the 1980s saw liberalization of the Soviet Union, leading to its eventual collapse. And while we may disagree with the politics of the Third Reich, I think it's obvious that they used the Olympics to broadcast their message of technological and political superiority to the rest of the world.

The Olympics have always been a great (or wasted) opportunity for the host country to show the world its good side. The Beijing games may have the same effect on China.

 

China hasnt freed the economy... Makes me wonder what the hell uve been reading... only in the largest cities has china tolerated capitalism...

The reason china has tolerated capitalism in these cities comes from the communist ideology itself. I cant think of the quote right now, if it strikes me ill put it on this thread. But anyway the saying basically means, You should always do what is good for the People. They did it because they realized it would be better for the people living in those larger cities.

And no, I dont like china. I hate them just a little bit less than the United States... the chinese government is just another fascist imperialist country which thrives on controlling people, killing people, and stealing others land and homes and making them move far away, much like the United States government... only china does it a little bit more obviously.

Free tibet. Thats all I have to say about what my feelings are toward China.

 

About 1/3 of china are members of the communist party... the other 2/3 are compromised of mostly socialistic ideologies... Raw Capitalists in the country are the fine fine minority... The chinese will NEVER support American Capitalism or Raw Capitalism (when I say raw capitalism, I mean the belief that EVERYTHING should be privatized)

 

Don't confuse being a member of the Communist Party with being a communist, as the two are quite different things. Most Communists are not communists. I don't think it's the case that there are no capitalists in China (or a very small minority), because China has a whole lot of businesspeople.

I don't know if the Chinese government would willingly support American style capitalism, but I wouldn't say it's impossible. They're already supporting something that looks a lot like Scandanavian capitalism.

 

You don't think that dictatorships interfer with capitalism? Do these dictatorships you're referring to enforce property rights and the rule of law and have rooted out corruption,which capitalism needs to work? Much of this would be political.

 

Ok Kandahar, you could have said that about the USSR when Stalin was in power, because anyone who disagreed with him was killed or sent to a labor camp... or early cuba when they did similar things... but nowndays the governments arent going after capitalists as much as they were during the Revolutions. People dont have to be in the communist parties... the government will not do anything if they are not... the people in the communist party of china really do believe in the communism they were taught... each individual probably has his own communistic sect, y ou know, leninism, maoism... much like communists all over the world... communism is a very broad term for a wide aspect of beliefs...

Scandanavian capitalim is STILL a long long shot from american capitalism... Chinese hate america... 1/3 of the world hates america. Chinese style capitalism is still not anything like scandanavian capitalism because chinese capitalism pertains only to large cities, so it would not make sense to compare it to that. If they become a democracy, they wont become an american capitalist democracy, i assure you that. Probably democratic socialist.

 

Well I guess I should have just said that they have moved more towards capitalism compared to were they were before the 70's. This is one of the reasons that the U.S trades with China and not Cuba. China has made economic reforms that Cuba hasn't made,so America doesn't have the same problems with China that it has with the Castro government who has yet to make similar economic reforms.

 

Chinese gov't is 100x worse than the cuban government IMO... im not saying that Castro doesnt have problems... any dictator has problems for wanting to be dictator in the first place. Power hungry bitches.... but the chinese have killed, raped, tortured, so many more people than cuba has.

There's no excuse for americas trade embargos on Cuba or China... If they released their embargo on Cuba than cuba would flourish with all the new trade available to them... thats the truth about why america hasnt lifted and wont lift their embargo on cuba. They want to have everyone think that communism is just hurting everyone all over the world but the truth is in cuba right now they arent having too many problems...

TRADE EMBARGOS ONLY HURT PEOPLE
they dont hurt governments, especially dictatorships.
not allowing trade just makes the populace of that country poor and starve. Theres no excuse for that, not in a ny country.

Especially when you are the biggest trade powerhouse in the world.
Denying trade to a country is like giving it a deathwish.

 

An example of how China's dictatorship has interfered with the economy in China to benefit themselves:

[Corruption is the number one enemy in China today and the government is determined to make a big show of trying to wipe it out.

By its own admission, bribery, extortion, smuggling and racketeering are endemic throughout every level of the Communist Party.

Dr Xu Cheng Gang, Lecturer in Economics at London University says that the root of the problem is the lack of separation between business and government brought about by efforts to open up the Chinese economy.

"In a completely centrally planned economy," he says, "when there was no market, corruption was less important because although they were powerful officials were not able to sell.

Now, he says, with China in the midst of economic upheaval, the government continues to allocate resources, placing officials at the centre of the market and enabling them to channel profits into their own pockets.

According to Dr Xu, the government faces a contradiction - on the one hand it wants to crackdown on corruption whilst on the other it wants to keep its central position in controlling the economy.

"In the first case they must reform more thoroughly to separate government and business completely", he says. "In that sense, they are going to weaken the party's economic power, but they may gain better reputation politically.]


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/923447.stm

This was written in 2000 so I'am not familiar with what has and hasn't changed with this since then.

 

Motion, you're right and what you quoted it's exactly what happenes when communist society starts to become capitalist.

Mui, you know communism from outside. I had the misfortune to live half of my life in communism, so I know marxism both as theory and practice. And believe me, if China would be fascist, chinese could call themselves lucky. Chinese capitalism has nothing to do with marxism, who theoreticly excludes any type of so called "human by human exploitation" (but in practice generates state feudalism). As divers as communist doctrins are, all of them lead to dictatorship and repression. So, don't make any illusions about Castro or China. China is actualy a worse empire as America is, because in the US at least there are people who disapprouve imperial polithics of their own government. When had China a marxist economy? It still does outside the coastal large cities.

Kandahar, in Swedish capitalism you have a very high lifestandard. But in China, get outside Shanghai and what do you think you'll find? A very, very poor people. With no hopes of improuvement. And even in cities like Shanghai, don't think everyone lives like a bussinessman. Think to all those people from Beijing who are forcely mouved from their homes, so as their houses can be demolished to buid corporate buildings. Oligarchy doesn't exclude high developped industry. And another big difference, Sweden is a democracy, so state involvement in economy is not the same as in China.

Now, about the Olympics. The 1980 Moscow Olympics, organized by Brejnev, a neostalinist bastard, has nothing to do with Gorbatchyov and later perestroika. Like the Berlin Olympics, they were used as a propaganda tool. And the Beijing Olympics will have the same porpuse and they will be a new occasion to make the "naive" Westerners to put the TienAnMen Square and Tibet behind.

 

I am not sure there is such a thing as pure capitalism or dictatorship anywhere. what we have are mixed economies and political systems varying from controled to liberal in different degrees. Many dictatorships, whether communist or fascist, have encouraged entrepreneurs and industry as long as they stick to their spheres and didn't get involved in state industries or politics.

 

Guten Tag, Goldmund. Du must mit ein Ostisch sprechen.

Well, there is not total democracy, but pure dictatorship yes. Think about Pol Pot, as an example.

 

Guten Tag Sandu. Nr. Nur englisch! . That is true about the Khmer Rouge. Thank goodness it was short-lived. But in most cases, people have some amount of autonomy to make decisions for themselves. There is no way for government to control EVERY aspect of EVERYONES lives.