Tisztelt Forum!
Olvastam egy erdekes elemzest a tegnapi helyi lapban (Wisconsin
State Journal, May 30, p 1F). Annyira elter az altalam eddig
olvasott elemzesektol, gondoltam vitat nyitok folotte a Forumon.
"IN RUSSIA, AMERICA CAPITALISM MAY NOT WORK
Many Americans assume that Russia, inevitably, will import
capitalism from the United States, since communism lost to
capitalism. This generally held belief contains several false
views about Russia.
First, America capitalism did not defeat Russian communism.
Rather, the Russian version of authoritarian collectivism collapsed
from within. Second, Russians do not necessarily envy life in the
United States. Third, importing American capitalism has made life
worse, rather than better, for many Russian citizens. Russians want
to change their economic system, but not necessarily to the
American version of capitalism.
On the first point, what occurred in Russia during the late
1980s was the collapse of authoritarian collectivism from within.
Although officially a communist country from 1917 to 1987, Russia
never experienced socialism, (which was supposed to usher in
communism), much less communism.
A major principle of socialism is that social and economic
benefits are to be distributed according to each person's
contribution to the welfare of society. Those who work toward
improving social welfare the most should receive the highest
rewards.
However, during 70 years of Communist Party rule, distribution
of benefits was based on government connections, not contribution
to social welfare. In particular, government bureaucrats, Communist
officials and their friends received special privileges in strict
violation of communist doctrine. The result was a corrupt,
authoritarian form of collectivism - not socialism or communism.
This is what failed in Russia. Too many Russian bureaucrats seeing
themselves as "owners" of the land, sacrificed the good of the
country to solve their personal disputes.
Second, Russians do not necessarily envy life in the United
States. Despite the collapse of the Communist Party in Russia, the
communist critique of capitalism remains unchanged. Russians were
taught, and believe, that those in the United States who contribute
a great deal to social welfare, such as teachers and social
workers, are highly underpaid, whereas those who begin life with
major head starts, such as the wealthy, or who contribute to
society in a frivolous manner, such as entertainers, are highly
overpaid.
From the Russian perspective, many US citizens lack an
appropriate education and medical insurance, particularly those
citizens not born to wealthy families. They believe that the U.S.
infrastructure is collapsing. Those most vulnerable -the elderly,
handicapped, and children - are only reluctantly supported by
government funding.
Many U.S. companies pay their employees as little az possible
and in difficult times, want to dismiss them as soon as possible.
Rather than obtaining jobs they want or like Americans take
whatever job is available to financially support their families.
Thus neither jobs nor employees are valued; they are simply
disposable commodities.
Wages appear to be linked more with social connections than
effort. If born to rich parents, an American is likely to graduate
from one of the best private universities and obtain a job with a
profitable company. If born to middle-class or poor parents, an
American is likely to attend less prestigious schools work just as
hard, if not harder, and earn less money.
Under capitalism, as proclaimed by Karl Marx during the 1800s
and as documented by U.S. social scientist during the Reagan years,
the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Thus the Western
european model of capitalism is preferred to the American model due
to its higher standards of living and economic security.
Third, importing American capitalism had made life worse,
rather than better, for most Russian citizens. The belief that
adopting American capitalism in Russia will make life better in the
long term is a matter of faith that lacks supporting empirical
evidence. .... (S. Kuznetsova and D. Collins)"
Nem idezem tovabb, inkabb megkerdezem a velemenyeteket, varom
a kommantarjaitokat. Azt hiszem sok tekintetben "Russia" konnyeden
behelyettesitheto a fenti szovegben "Hungary"-val. Beszeljunk
errol!
A cikk foglalkozik mindket rendszernek az arnyoldalaival.
Tevedek, ha feltetelezem, hogy az atmeneti idoszakban a ket
szisztema arnyoldalai egyszerre vannak jelen, a ket rendszer
pozitivumai egyarant hianycikkek? Ti hogy gondoljatok, mi a
kovetendo ut?
Egy dolgot nem latok vilagosan: mire gondolhattak a cikkirok
amikor az amerikai modellel szemben a nyugat europait helyeztek
eloterbe?
Egy alkoto vita remenyeben, udvozlettel
tamas
|
