arras

people, at last in Czechoslovakia still remembered Great Depression and WWII. They were aware what capitalism can lead to. Of course younger generation did not lived through those times. But there were plenty of older people who did.

Majority of people in 1989 did not wanted capitalism. Here is part of Havel's speech before he became president where:

"Twenty years official (communistic) propaganda claimed that I was an enemy of socialism, that I want to restore capitalism, that I was in the service of world imperialism, from which I accepted fat rewards that, I want to be the owner of various businesses. They were all lies,..." source

He was lying every single word of course but that is not important for our discussion. What it does demonstrate is that Havel considered it important in 1989 when he wanted to become president to tell people that he does not want to restore capitalism. That tells you something about general opinion of public in those times.

Yes I think so. I do not think socialism was not working economically. It had its good sides and it had its downsides. Instead of dismantling it we should have improved it.

As for privatization, there should have been none. Privatization was just gigantic state sponsored robbery of public property and massive corruption. One which still haunt us 20 years later. Individual enterprises should have been allowed, but ones build and developed by their owners.

And most importantly Comecon should not have been dissolved and our markets open wide to West. Eastern European countries should have kept their common market and open it only slowly under condition favourable to us not to West. Something China is doing more or less successfully.

arras

You are wrong in this one. Economy is not infinite space with infinite resources. People does not sit on piles of money, ready to buy your products or services. Energy does not appear out of nowhere. If you manage to produce something people want, money which they will spent on your product will not be spend on someone else product. You will just take someone else place on market.

Therefore it does not matter how much people qualify or not. If society and its economic model provide just for certain amount of consumption, there will always be people who will be unable to find job.

Only way to provide jobs for all, or at last most members of society is to direct and plan your economy to certain degree. You have to manage resources, people including.

I am always amazed that most ardent proponents of free market actually newer dare to implement it in their own business. They run them as certainly planed and directed. Why?

If free unlimited market without any central interference, planning and direction is most effective economic model, than how comes nobody ever implemented it in their own factory or office? If it works so well on general scale in system than it sure should work as well in subjects and subcomponents of that system.

arras

You are wrong in this one. Economy is not infinite space with infinite resources. People does not sit on piles of money, ready to buy your products or services. Energy does not appear out of nowhere. If you manage to produce something people want, money which they will spent on your product will not be spend on someone else product. You will just take someone else place on market.

Therefore it does not matter how much people qualify or not. If society and its economic model provide just for certain amount of consumption, there will always be people who will be unable to find job.

Only way to provide jobs for all, or at last most members of society is to direct and plan your economy to certain degree. You have to manage resources, people including.

I am always amazed that most ardent proponents of free market actually newer dare to implement it in their own business. They run them as certainly planed and directed. Why?

If free unlimited market without any central interference, planning and direction is most effective economic model, than how comes nobody ever implemented it in their own factory or office? If it works so well on general scale in system than it sure should work as well in subjects and subcomponents of that system.

And here comes surprise: business which plans, directs and manage its resources and activities beats one which does not every single time.

arras

Double post.

Ficino

Yes, this is what I meant.

Ficino

I disagree that it should have been no privatization at all, I think it was necessary for some cases, but not indicated for others. I thoroughly agree that the way in which it was done was a "gigantic state sponsored robbery of public property and massive corruption", and its goal was to enrich even more those who accumulated wealth during the communist regime, mainly by robbing the same state property. They and their children are those who have now the economic and political power, the so called successful, "enterprising", capitalists.

Lord Lucan

I dunno maybe Romania was exeption, but I dont think its true for rest of a Soviet block. People of all kinds of background got the goodies during privatization, not necessary Party bosses. The common thing about them was half criminality, shamelessness and greed. In the times of social change **** always comes to the top.

Lord Lucan

State (read bureaucracy) are not capable of efficient management.


What common market? The empty one? Filled only with outdated tech, ugly consumer goods and food shortages? So we could continue to manufacture crap and sell it to each other for fake money?

Ficino

I didn't necessary imply the party bosses. Many of those who enriched during the communist regime were involved with the black market, various Gypsies and other "dodgers", tolerated by some from our security services, as they received "taxes" and goods from such businesses. Those circles of friendships and mutual assistance have persisted and after the fall of the regime they literally spoiled and destroyed the state property and managed to put the hands of anything of value or sell it, officially for "nothing" (in fact for a lot of money they pocketed), to some foreigners.

arras

There is no reason why it should not. It is organization like any other. It certainly is no worst than large shareholder corporation.

There are plenty of examples when it was run effectively. Like Slovakia during WWII.

It is funny that during times of war or stress, even capitalistic countries resort to directed planed economies. When states need most effectivity out of their economy, they reach for centralised, directed ones.

And keep our factories running and people employed. Now we have shiny western consumer goods of crappy quality and western leftover food without any nutrition value but we can't afford them anyway as we do not have jobs.

I can not find more tragic example of this than your own country. If we does not count countries were there was war like Moldova. Your economy basically ceased to exist and half of productive population already left country to search jobs in the West. And there is no prospect of improvement as West itself plunged in to long crisis (how is that possible bye the way with best economic system in the world? Shouldn't capitalism and free market lead to prosperity?). Not even Eastern block markets and cheap labour is sufficient any more to keep capitalism running. Now we need war.

I have better idea of future for my children than this.