<<I agree the more and more China gets away from Communism it will prosper more and more.
The last decade is a perfect example of this....become pro-business and prosper...2+2=4>>
No, you are first assuming that Communism has no flexibility to it at all, so when you see change, you see the beginning of a linear progression away from communism rather than a mere course correction. The system of communism is still in place, the CP firmly in control, independent entrepreneurship operating under government control and with strict guidelines up to and including capital punishment for "businessmen" who cheat, take bribes or steal from the state. In both Cuba and the U.S.S.R. the communist system was flexible enough to allow for limited entrepreneurship when the circumstances seemed to call for it, most notably Lenin's NEP (New Economic Policy) in the 1920s - - concessions that were limited and then cut back as soon as they no longer served their purposes. Following the curtailment of the NEP in the U.S.S.R., the gross national product of the U.S.S.R. grew annually by double digits in the 1930s when the rest of the developed world was still in the grips of a depression.
<<But Communism in China is doomed if progress continues....catch 22 for the Commies>>
I guess that depends on what you call "progress" - - I'd say Communism would be doomed in China if the current system did not produce a tide that lifts all boats and merely produces a small commercial-industrial class that grows powerful enough to subvert the CP and the role of Marxist-Leninist theory in the Party. What you treat as an absolute certainty, I only recognize as a threat needing to be guarded against and contained.
<<Wealthy, high standards of living, business friendly nations just are not communist.>>
I don't see any incompatibility between high standards of living and communism. Communism aims to lift all citizens out of poverty, so that each has decent living quarters, food, medicine, education and employment. That is something that I would consider a "high" standard of living in comparison with the misery that envelopes most of the capitalist-ruled world today. "Wealthy" is a concept that embodies exploitation of the many by the few - - what is "wealth" when all are "wealthy?" "Wealth" would always mean a division between rich and poor, so that some are driven by desperation to work in the fields to feed those who do not work at all; some are forced to become servants or build luxury products for those who don't need to work. So "wealthiness" in fact does not go with communism, but I don't think a society that produces "wealth," i.e., economic equality, is anything to be aimed for.
<<More relativsm....plus NONE in the Top 20 are anywhere close to being communist.
<<The countries at the top are much closer to the US in typical lives of citizens than they are to China/Cuba/North Korea.>>
They are all "democratic" in that they do not overtly penalize individuals for the expression of their ideas, but in terms of their
economies they have clearly adopted socialist ideas and practices, which is the essence of a "mixed economy." The more socialism they have adopted, the more they cluster near the top of the list.
<<It's just a fact...communist can not get there.....the Gold Medal never comes to that system.>>
BFD. The Communist system was not designed to lift any country to the top of some think-tank's list. It was devised to end poverty and the exploitation of man by man. It was devised to lift countries out of the worst conditions of capitalism, which it has almost always done.
<<Basically communism cant progress beyond shithole status in standards of living and capitalism & democracy can.>>
Obviously the examples of the U.S.S.R., Cuba and China are just buried so that such a statement can be made. The U.S.S.R., China AND Cuba were all lifted out of shit-hole status, Cuba to a probably best-in-region status, Russia from nothing to a leading military-industrial power and China half-way to being a world-beater. That progress, of China, was more or less steady almost from the beginning of the Communist system there. In the early 1950s, they drove the U.S. Army from the North Korean border all the way back into South Korea, in the Sixties, they took some false steps under Chairman Mao but regained the path and followed under CP leadership to the position they now enjoy. When they need flexibility, they are flexible, when that flexibility has served its purpose, they straighten out the bends. If it were otherwise, the CP could say at this point, OK, our business class have brought us this far, now let's turn it over to them to finish the ride to the top. That is NOT going to happen. It is not the businessmen who control China, it is the CP. The businessmen work UNDER the CP and it is the CP and their skillful use of permitted entrepreneurship when required, that has caused China's success.
<<Communism is a dying theory....mainly because it doesn't work....it doesn't/cant produce top winning results.>>
Ha ha ha!!! Two words: China. Cuba. THOSE are "top winning results." Not "Norway." Not "Sweden." Those are temporary results of the accidents of history.
<<Freedom is basic human need/desire....non-freedom can not sustain itself over time.>>
Who knows? This may be right. Maybe at some future point men will want to be free when their economic problems have been solved by the application of the Communist system and all men and women truly have become economic equals. In the meantime, Communists know that it is the leadership of the Party under Marxist-Leninist principles that will provide the surest path out of capitalist exploitation and inequities and that saboteurs of the Revolution will abuse "freedom" in any way they can to bring down the Revolution.
For sure the capitalists do NOT believe in "freedom" - - they buy up all the media of communication, consolidate them and have worked out a system of perfect thought repression in which all important media purvey the same message with very careful control over dissenting voices, allowing only enough dissent to enable them to deny accusations of media control of the message.
<<What you describe in Haiti & other "so called capitalistic" countries are fundamentally acts of government
enforced policy, which is not the free market capitalism. What you see as "capitalism" is actually a form of
state capitalism, mercantilism, Fascism, or oligarchic dicatatorship.You miss the fundamental point of capitalism
which is freedom.>>
LOL. Haiti and other countries like it are in fact perfect examples of capitalism in action. There is no state alternative to the provision of the basic necessities of life to the population, all of whom are forced to deal with various profit-making entities for their food, shelter, health-care and education. An enforced poverty ensures an endless supply of cheap labour for whatever private enterprise chooses to produce, including servants and menials to serve the rich. Capitalism has nothing to do with freedom. Capitalism can thrive side-by-side with slavery, and has done so.
<<What is absurd is dismissing the list that clearly shows what works best.>>
No, the list shows what has produced a certain kind of society that you and others like you appear to like; it does not show what produces the most egalitarian society, one with the fairest and most equal distribution of the national wealth.
<<Standards of living are "across the board" measurements.>>
No they are averages. As you yourself probably realize, an average can be "weighted" by very high scores at one end of the scale, which pull up the national average without indicating the true index of misery at the bottom of the society.
<<Because there are poor in so called capitalist societies & poor in communist countries
does not mean they are nearly the same or the misery is the same.>>
The fact is that the gap between rich and poor is highest in the capitalist countries and lowest in the communist countries. The whole aim and purpose of Communism is that NOBODY at the bottom should be miserable. The aim of capitalism is that anyone who wants to should be free to pursue the top end of the scale without any limits, regardless of what happens at the bottom end.
<<But 80% success is a hell of a lot better than 10% success.>>
ROTFLMFAO. 80% success? Success for whom? Are you joking?
HERE is the real story of what works in America:
<<There is very little data about the distribution of wealth in America. There is one source, the Survey of Consumer Finances, sponsored by the Federal Reserve Board, that does provide data from 1983.
<<These data suggest that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of families. The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 34.3% of the nation's net worth, the top 10% of families owns over 71%, and
the bottom 40% of the population owns way less than 1%. >>
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm <<LOL....there are almost no middle classes in Communist countries....>>
No, because most are in "worker" status or equivalent - - even medical doctors are salaried on a par with more conventional "workers."
<<It's either a few elites at the top and then everybody else the peasant living a pathetic life.>>
Sorry that is
exactly capitalism, that is the Congo Republic, that is Honduras, that is Haiti, that is . . . just about every capitalist country that is NOT on your "list."
<<All Poor and few elites vs huge middle class, small poor class, and rich.....ANY QUESTIONS?>>
Yeah, sure I've got a question, which country has the "small poor class," the one where 40% of the nation own less than 1% of the wealth? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
<<I guess "shit hole" is a relative term....I doubt many in Detroit would wanna trade
positions with a Haitian, but plenty of Haitains would gladly trade with a poor Detroit resident.>>
Yes, there is that difference between rich nation and poor nation. Population, huge land area, natural resources etc. still count for something, don't they? But the slums of capitalist America are still shit-holes just like the slums of capitalist Haiti.
<<Funny how that works....that communism is ALWAYS the one with the "bad luck">>
Hear any Chinese complaining recently about their country's "bad luck?"
<<Whose fault is that they took the wrong route and lost several generations?>>
Yeah? Which route did the U.S.A. take that resulted in 1% of the people owning over a third of its wealth? Was that the right route? LOL.
<<Almost all societies are built on "genocide".>>
Nonsense.
<<Almost every nation of people "ran somebody off" that was there first.>>
True but that's not genocide.
<<Of course as usual you only see western so called "genocide".
<<But Russia, China, purged millions and millions.>>
That's not genocide, it's class war. And the "millions and millions" are just bullshit Cold War propaganda. If you want to start calling every war "genocide" then we have to add the total number of victims of U.S. wars to the toll that they already racked up from real genocide.
<<There are many more million slaves today in 2010 that there ever was in the US....where's the outrage?...lol>>
I dunno - -maybe first you better show me, where are the slaves? lol
<<Cant win the game? Invent some excuse.>>
What are you talking about? The Communists ARE winning the game. That's why your country is fucked and hovering at the brink of insolvency.
<<And your like the guy that keeps losing for decades and keeps saying "you just wait"...if...one day...blah blah blah>>
Yeah. "Decades." That's the key word. The prosperity of other countries was built over centuries and you think it should only take communism a few decades to catch up if it's got what it takes. So it takes more than decades. BFD. The fact is, they're on the way up and you and your capitalist friends are on the way down.
<<My money is on the horse that as it becomes less communist it is becoming more successful.
<<China will not be Communist in 25 years for sure....maybe not in 10 years.>>
Their loss if they're not. Anyone who doubts that can look at the fate of Russia. Anytime China wants to lose its world stature, become a pawn of the Americans with NATO bases ringing it on all sides, it can always go the Russian route and throw Communism under the bus like those schmucks in Russia have done. Personally I think they're too smart and too tough for that.