I'm posting this because it's a mental debate I've been having for a while. While I like the idea that everyone should live well and that poverty is terrible, I also question the idea of social responsibility. So here goes:
Communism:
The movement for a classless and stateless society where everything is shared among the entire population.
Laissez-faire:
The movement for a society in which all economy is unregulated. Consequentially, money and manpower are the only means for power and influence.
Which will result in a better world?
I used to be on the side of communism, but now I feel like Laissez-faire may be the way to go. The reason being is that I cannot think of a conceivable way for communism to work as long as human beings are human beings. I don't think people of intelligence and skill are willing to tolerate having the same as a person without either of those traits. Conversely, I don't think that a person of intelligence and skill should have to tolerate being brought down by a person who does only the bare minimum of the work that they must do. And to accompany all of that, I do not think that society will develop if people do not go above and beyond the norm and I do not think that everyone will be willing to go above and beyond the norm.
I can immediately predict people saying Laissez-faire is an awful system because people with wealth will exploit those without it. They will say that with no minimum wage, companies will form trusts in order to avoid having to pay higher wages. However, I believe that events like the libyan rebellion are showing that normal people are both willing and able to stand up to oppressive policies and and work for a deal with employers that benefits both parties mutually.
I'd be more in favor of communism except that it requires a big long chain of radical social change leading up to it for it to work. You can't just drop everything and declare yourself communist like you can with laissez-faire capitalism.
A nation, I mean. A person can be communist whenever they feel like.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32378383]I'd be more in favor of communism except that it requires a big long chain of radical social change leading up to it for it to work. You can't just drop everything and declare yourself communist like you can with laissez-faire capitalism.
A nation, I mean. A person can be communist whenever they feel like.[/QUOTE]
Then I have to ask how you propose to get people to A. work for the benefit of people who are less capable than they are and B. Get people to be motivated to do work at all, when regardless of how much they succeed they get the same benefits.
[QUOTE=melonmonkey;32378408]Then I have to ask how you propose to get people to A. work for the benefit of people who are less capable than they are and B. Get people to be motivated to do work at all, when regardless of how much they succeed they get the same benefits.[/QUOTE]
I don't deny that there are problems with communism but B is not actually true under socialism, which is sort of a stage to ween people off of capitalistic ideas for the conversion to pure communism. Workers are compensated under socialism in accordance with how much they produce.
I'm not sure the argument that communism will lead to society not producing great things works in the real world when you consider the huge rise in China's power over the last few years.
Communism tends to have issues with corruption and lack of incentive for businesses/researchers. If a society were to be raised where all individuals were to actually work for the better of the commune it would be the superior system. However, people appear to care more for their-selves.
True laissez-faire doesn't work because there's a need for regulation in the market. Businesses won't work for the good of the people and will work exclusive for their own benefit. Look at what happens in the food industry when it's unregulated: people get lazy and sanitation/safety becomes an issue. Many people died as a result of poor sanitation prior to mandatory inspections by government agencies.
[QUOTE=Lord_Skellig;32378999]I'm not sure the argument that communism will lead to society not producing great things works in the real world when you consider the huge rise in China's power over the last few years.[/QUOTE]
China isn't Communist.
[QUOTE=Lord_Skellig;32378999]I'm not sure the argument that communism will lead to society not producing great things works in the real world when you consider the huge rise in China's power over the last few years.[/QUOTE]
China is not a true communist society. The Gini-coefficient as a percent for China is 46.9% vs 40.8% in the United States of America. (UN)
100% would mean all wealth is in the hands of single individual, 0% would be a truly classless society with all wealth evenly distributed.
I'm probably going to sound stupid, but I've always said there is nothing inherently wrong with communism, and it could work if it weren't for human nature.
Neither imo, both allow tyrants to rule over society.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32379061]China isn't Communist.[/QUOTE]
I would say it has state capitalism.
communism doesn't work.
human nature will make people want more than their neighbor, and almost no one could be truly content sharing everything with everyone in their country for their whole life
I would say a mixed market is the way to go about things. It keeps businesses in check and allows most of the freedom in lassez-faire.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;32379021]Communism tends to have issues with corruption and lack of incentive for businesses/researchers. If a society were to be raised where all individuals were to actually work for the better of the commune it would be the superior system. However, people appear to care more for their-selves.
True laissez-faire doesn't work because there's a need for regulation in the market. Businesses won't work for the good of the people and will work exclusive for their own benefit. Look at what happens in the food industry when it's unregulated: people get lazy and sanitation/safety becomes an issue. Many people died as a result of poor sanitation prior to mandatory inspections by government agencies.[/QUOTE]
But if people stopped buying the food after hearing about the food sanitation issues they would go out of business.
I think that Laissez-faire wouldn't have worked even 50 years ago, but I think modern technology is making it more and more achievable.
Communism hasn't ever, and ever will be, true blue Communism. It's just not possible while humans exist.
Communism needs to be democratic for it to work.
[editline]19th September 2011[/editline]
which it inherently isn't, so thbbbtht
[QUOTE=The mouse;32379131]Neither imo, both allow tyrants to rule over society.[/QUOTE]
Neither system must include tyrants, as neither is talking about who's ruling. A true communist society would not have a tyrant, a society that practices laissez-faire would have an economy free of tyrannical influences.
[QUOTE=Lord_Skellig;32378999]I'm not sure the argument that communism will lead to society not producing great things works in the real world when you consider the huge rise in China's power over the last few years.[/QUOTE]
China's economy is more market-oriented now than it has been. They are more open to international trade, investment, and their private sector is (becoming) a huge part of their economy.
I can't bring myself to consider Communism, but pure Laissez-faire, historically speaking, leads to major exploitation. How about a nice mix?
I'm mostly for communism, but the OP is right
Someone will always have to do more work than someone else, but if you enjoyed your job, it should get pretty equal
Education should be free, anyone should have the right to a place to live, the quality of the housing should depend on how much effort you put into your job.
Some money system would always have to exist , but it should still be dependant on effort, someone has to stand in your local store, if everyone was rocket scientists it wouldent really work
[QUOTE=Lambeth;32379218]Communism needs to be democratic for it to work.
[editline]19th September 2011[/editline]
which it inherently isn't, so thbbbtht[/QUOTE]
Where did you hear that it isn't democratic?
[QUOTE=space1;32379175]I would say a mixed market is the way to go about things. It keeps businesses in check and allows most of the freedom in lassez-faire.[/QUOTE]
But how do you make the market fair for all? With Laissez-faire it's inherently fair because everyone is CAPABLE of succeeding in every sense of the word. Different markets have to be regulated differently, but who gets to decide how the regulation is done, and how is it done?
[QUOTE=melonmonkey;32379213]But if people stopped buying the food after hearing about the food sanitation issues they would go out of business. [/QUOTE]
A company exists which has a monopoly on a foodstuff which is needed to sustain life in a region. Food, being a necessity is not something people can choose not to buy. The monopoly retains it's customers as they do not have a choice in the matter.
If that argument is not sufficient it should be pointed out that the tainting of a popular product might lead to mass death. Damages might be so significant that while the company may go out of business, society as a whole may suffer. Imagine if 90% of the worlds beef supply was tainted by the prion which causes bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Symptoms might not arise for years, and BSE is not a condition that one can not cure. Once you've consumed the prion, you're going to die.
[QUOTE=melonmonkey;32379379]With Laissez-faire it's inherently fair because everyone is CAPABLE of succeeding in every sense of the word. Different markets have to be regulated differently, but who gets to decide how the regulation is done, and how is it done?[/QUOTE]
As in the wealthy are [B]capable[/B] of shitting on the poor if they decide to work together.
"Human nature" must be the most common and uninformed argument against communism. How many of you using this argument knows anything about Marx's theory of alienation? If you have, please argument against that theory instead of just oversimplifying everything.
I'd rather have a shitty government trying to help everyone than evil people only trying to help themselves.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32379307]Where did you hear that it isn't democratic?[/QUOTE]
Well all communist countries that I can think of appear to have fallen into a dictatorship.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32379418]As in the wealthy are [B]capable[/B] of shitting on the poor if they decide to work together.[/QUOTE]
Not really. The poor could just stop working for the offending companies.
[QUOTE=melonmonkey;32379471]Not really. The poor could just stop working for the offending companies.[/QUOTE]
As if the poor can afford to quit their jobs, even if they are shitty?
The closest thing possible to communism would be a state that owns all property and enterprises within the nation. Something like Britain in the 1950s or the USSR.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;32379469]Well all communist countries that I can think of appear to have fallen into a dictatorship.[/QUOTE]
Because a dictator came to power through force, like Pol Pot, Stalin, or the Gang of Four.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.