>>If capitalism was so good, communists would never have stood a chance.
>
>Uhh.. Psstt.. Except for some US university campuses they're gone. <g>

Keep those guys and press them just a little so they don't lose the edge. With voices of dissent absent, capitalism will turn really nasty (which is probably the subject of this thread).

>>So yes, they have built a new man, and what a creature it was - just like the old one, just more the same.
>
>You.. Religion with the god of no god. Very odd actually.

The religion, or lack thereof, was not the issue. The honest ordinary people, and the corrupt middle-to-upper ranks (I'm generalizing here) were equally heahten. It was the matter of simple honesty, sticking to an ethical code, or being more or less hypocritical. At some point, the corruption started drilling its way from middle ranks up an down. On the top, you still had the workers and peasants who became politicians during the war, and most of them stuck to the warrior ethical code, pretty much the same as the people did (for either the upbringing they inherited, or for believing the propaganda). It began when various positions needed to be filled from outside the ranks, and when the warriors started retiring - they were generally replaced with the unscrupulous and power-hungry younger politicians from the middle ranks. That's how it worked upwards; it spread downwards by setting examples and getting subordinates' hands dirty so they'd keep their mouths shut.

>>... and the incentive thing was also limited: the Party took care that nobody gets rich. Also, there were absurd situations when janitors and hall cleaners had their say when a new CAT scanner was to be bought for a hospital.
>
>Yup. While capitalism is very very far from perfect it does one thing that will always cause it to prevail - it recognizes a more accurate view of man's nature. Greedy and terminally self-centered.

And so, basically, does the idea of self-management socialism. I figure the good way would be the self-managed capitalism, where the majority of ownership would be spread across multiple owners, just enough that the workforce present in most of the companies would have the controlling pack of stock. The capital wouldn't be that faceless and uncaring, far away from those who work for it. The guys would know they're working for themselves, and you may see some miracles there, after a few years.

>>Still, the whole idea that the employees manage the enterprise worked well when it worked. Former former Yugoslavia had quite a strong economy, given the background etc.

>Again, a single idea taken to an absurd point. I'd recommend Dr. Thomas Sowell's book, "Knowledge and Decisions".

I've presented it as a single idea, because I don't remember the total ramifications of the system - it involved democracy at all levels; you had elected councils at all levels, in your local community, in the health fund, in the place where you worked etc etc. One of the things which were supposed to bridge the gap between decision and qualified decision were the so-called political schools, where anyone could get to know how the system operates, how is it supposed to etc etc; the idea was to educate the people to make decisions. One more thing which turned sour - the Party actually treated those schools as their own seminaries. The moment you entered one, you were an unofficial candidate member. The Party guys in my high school were surprised that I refused membership after attending one of those :)