Socialism and International Economic Order, by Elisabeth Tamedly, full text in PDF with nav links.
Despite its internationalist aspirations, socialism is not capable of accomplishing stable international peace and order. If we postulate a true democracy, society is to be built not on centralization, but on federalism and decentralized decision making much as Proudhon had outlined it a century ago. But it is impossible to realize this political order without its
economic counterpart: a free market economy based on competition.
{ 7 comments }
Well, we will very soon have a full fledged case study of socialism. Dictator Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and yes, he is now a dictator, having received emergency powers from the rubber stamp legislature, is in the process of forcibly nationalizing all public utility and energy companies. They are being seized from their lawful owners with no compensation whatsoever. He has declared that he wants to turn Venezuela into a 100% socialist state. He is proceeding to do so and it is likely that all private business and agriculture will be state run by 2013. It is most likely by then that there will be no private property in Venezuela by that time either.
So we will definately have a case study ready for us by 2013. I won’t feel sorry for the 63% of stupid bastards that voted for this moron as President. When they go down to the state run grocery store and stand in line for their miniscule “allotment” of groceries and all the rest of the things as happened in Russia between 1917 and 1989.
Of course socialism is capable of peace and order in the international arena- one just has to crush the opposition to socialism first.
Kinsella:”Interesting–compare to Hoppe’s view that nations that have relatively liberal internal economic policies (the relatively rich West) would tend to be militarily more powerful, and thus more aggressive and imperialistic, than developing states.” (He wrote this on another thread, but I think he meant it for this one.)
That is an interesting comparison. Iran might be a good example. It wants to control the Middle East and fights proxy wars in Lebanon, Palestinian territories and elsewhere. It’s also very socialistic. Yet it’s one of the poorest countries in the Middle East with a percap income of less than $3,000 and about 30% of the population living on less than $4/day. It must be spending a huge portion of its GDP on the military. However, the leadership seems to think that expansion will create wealth.
Until roughly the 18th century, expansion of the empire was the chief way to enrich a nation. Actually, it only enriched the ruling elites, but that was all they cared about. The Ottoman Empire actually had the strategy of acquiring greater territory in order to appropriate (steal) the wealth of the newly acquired people. But they were only the latest to do so. All empires, beginnign with Babylon, needed to expand and steal just to maintain their standard of living.
One important point, which should be remembered, is that a socialist state that isn’t armed to the teeth presents a tempting prize to any would-be conqueror. What other kind of system has a cowed mass that can be taken over simply by seizing the reins of government?
It is this logical consideration that all-but impels socialism to militarization, even militarism.
dqsdqw
New Video Appears to Show Body of Saddam After Hanging
Mark, if your predictions come true and Venezuela
does collectivise all its agriculture,Soviet style,then I predict it will also be forced to seal its borders internally to prevent people from escaping their new paradise.Remember, you read it here first!
Chavez will likely become a repressive dictator, everything in his past and his patterns of action indicate his thirst for absolute power.
Tis a pity that Venezuela doesn’t harbor a Pinochet. Sadly, an internal coup is likely the only way to get rid of this bastard.
Comments on this entry are closed.