• Laissez-faire Vs Communism
    168 replies, posted
OP neglects the third option of socialism, which is what I would be defending. Neither communism, nor capitalism, unrestricted, hold the answer to our ails, nor does a capitalistic mixed economy leaning more on the free market than the nationalized market/industry. A mixed economy with socialistic values, that is, democratic socialism, is best. Unrestricted Capitalism would of course work, to the extent that 1800s Britain and 1860-1930s America worked, that is, unrestricted corruption, corporatism, monopolization, resource control and hoarding, extreme classism and class divides. It would do as it intended: distribute wealth through economic resource trade up until the inevitable collapse when a unrestricted upper class controls too much of the wealth, or mismanagement on the part of the upper class and resource-holders tumbles the fragile house of cards, as seen in the depressions and recent recessions. Communism, on the other hand, require the structure of capitalism already having developed a nation enough to sustain its population without extreme economic growth and industrial leaps, while also relying on socialism and a temporary authoritarian streak to prevent the former resource-holders from convincing the masses to their side and using their wealth and power to undo any social progression along a socialist route. Without the authoritarian transition phase and reliance on either forced ideology and culture, or educated ideology and culture, that would retrain or re-educate the masses to be socialistic and compassionate in nature, then final-product true communism would fail. The specific needs and reliance on the compassionate society-based human are what make communism unlikely to occur. However, socialism on the other hand (yes, that's THREE HANDS people!) creates a democratic environment by which the masses will, in total, work towards their own benefit by using the resource-controlling elected government to redistributed resources and promote their own well-being without the influences of corporate greed nor individual resource-hoarding. The government would rely on the people to give it its power, while the people rely on the government to fulfill their wants and needs through redistribution of resources. It takes the 'greed-incentive' of capitalism and makes the 'mutual voluntary societal welfare' of communism work. People want the be happy, they want material goods, and socialism would allow them to receive what they as a whole want on an individual level, for the entirety. So yea. Neither is valid, in my mind.
Communism would be ideal if it didn't break every single time. A lot of communism supporters here will say "but there's never been a REAL communist government!" but have never defined 'true communism.' From the vague bits that they have said about it I've understood it to mean more anarchy than communism, which is another thing - what is the difference between communism and anarchy? In a perfect communist society, wouldn't their be no government? Wouldn't the people be autonomous? Isn't that what anarchy is supposed to be? I haven't payed much attention to either besides the past catastrophes they've caused so I'm sorry if I don't understand them fully.
No, anarchy is not communism due to the issue of property ownership.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32386488]No, anarchy is not communism due to the issue of property ownership.[/QUOTE]In true communism, wouldn't there be no property ownership anyway?
[QUOTE=cccritical;32386407]Communism would be ideal if it didn't break every single time. A lot of communism supporters here will say "but there's never been a REAL communist government!" but have never defined 'true communism.' From the vague bits that they have said about it I've understood it to mean more anarchy than communism, which is another thing - what is the difference between communism and anarchy? In a perfect communist society, wouldn't their be no government? Wouldn't the people be autonomous? Isn't that what anarchy is supposed to be? I haven't payed much attention to either besides the past catastrophes they've caused so I'm sorry if I don't understand them fully.[/QUOTE] Well, here's my two cents: 'Real communism' usually refers to the leftist view of communism. There were initially two camps: Left and Right communism. The majority were Left communists- liberal, progressive socialists with an emphasis on democracy and personal freedom. Some Right factions, such as the Bolsheviks, believed that personal freedom and democracy could be temporarily skipped over, if at all given, in support of an integrated culture and peoples. Once the Right Bolsheviks took control in Russia, they were the only example of socialism in the world. Because of their power, they in turn were able to aid and help bring into power other Right communists, such as Mao, Castro, etc. Left communism was overall ignored as their revolutions failed, or were sabotaged by the growing Right communist tendencies. For instance, the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918–1919]1918 German Revolution[/url] and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Soviet_Republic]Hungarian Soviet Republic[/url] (which was mostly democratic and guaranteed basic rights). The fundamental difference between the two groups was that one saw the failings of the idolized Paris Commune as a problem of outside forces (hence the internationalist tenancies of the Left), and the other believed it to be that there was too much liberty, and too little governmental power/control (hence the authoritarian and later totalitarian positions). This is reflected in the naming of the split between Trotsky and Stalin, with the more liberal democrats on the Left Opposition, and the more authoritarian leaders in the Right Opposition. When people say 'Real Communism', they usually refer to the Left communism (which differs from modern Left Communism). The reason for this is because the West never was exposed to a ruling Right communism. The West has a strong personal-liberty stance, and values independence and freedom, as opposed to Eastern societies like India and China, where there's less influence on independence, and a strong cultural push for societal wellbeing over the individual. And as far as Anarchy and Communism go, most left anarchists today fall into the camp of Anarcho-Communism, which is basically the final stage of communism. The difference really isn't notable. Both come down to democratic distribution of resources and labor without a ruling class and a relatively weak government. The term communism (not to be confused with socialism, which is what all communist states were. Remember that there can not be a communist state, but only a state of communism) really refers to a anarchistic system that comes to being through the specific way of socialism. The main difference between communists and anarchists is simply that communists intend to bring socialism and evolve to anarchistic society, while anarchists do not. This is why the two groups are historically very close, even fighting together in the Spanish Civil War, Russian Revolution, and international labour movements. The Paris Commune, an anarchist society, served as the idol and basis of Marx's theories, and the basis of what a communist society should be like.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32384850']Unrestricted Capitalism would of course work, to the extent that 1800s Britain and 1860-1930s America worked, that is, unrestricted corruption, corporatism, monopolization, resource control and hoarding, extreme classism and class divides.[/quote] You read too many sensationalist books. Did you stop to actually ask yourself what the circumstances of that era were? It's statements like these that force me to ask if you've [i]ever[/i] even considered reading into the other side of the debate on this issue. I suspect you haven't, and I suspect you'll be blindsided. [quote]The oil rush began with the discovery of oil by Colonel Edwin Drake at Titusville, Pennsylvania in 1859. Northwestern Pennsylvania soon “was overrun with businessmen, speculators, misfits, horse dealers, drillers, bankers, and just plain hell-raisers. Dirt-poor farmers leased land at fantastic prices, and rigs began blackening the landscape. Existing towns jammed full overnight with ‘strangers,’ and new towns appeared almost as quickly.”[3] In the midst of chaos emerged young John D. Rockefeller. Rockefeller transformed his early interest in oil into a partnership in the refinery stage of the business in 1865. Five years later, Rockefeller formed the Standard Oil Company with 4 per cent of the refining market. Less than thirty years later, he reached that all-time high of 90 per cent. What accounts for such stunning success? On December 30, 1899, Rockefeller was asked that very question before a governmental investigating body called the Industrial Commission. He replied: [quote] I ascribe the success of the Standard to its consistent policy to make the volume of its business large through the merits and cheapness of its products. It has spared no expense in finding, securing, and utilizing the best and cheapest methods of manufacture. It has sought for the best superintendents and workmen and paid the best wages. It has not hesitated to sacrifice old machinery and old plants for new and better ones. It has placed its manufactories at the points where they could supply markets at the least expense. It has not only sought markets for its principal products, but for all possible by-products, sparing no expense in introducing them to the public. It has not hesitated to invest millions of dollars in methods of cheapening the gathering and distribution of oils by pipe lines, special cars, tank steamers, and tank wagons. It has erected tank stations at every important railroad station to cheapen the storage and delivery of its products. It has spared no expense in forcing its products into the markets of the world among people civilized and uncivilized. It has had faith in American oil, and has brought together millions of money for the purpose of making it what it is, and holding its markets against the competition of Russia and all the many countries which are producers of oil and competitors against American oil.[4] [/quote][/quote] but please, don't take this bourgeois slob's word for it, let's ask a Socialist historian: [quote] [b]Socialist historian Gabriel Kolko[/b], who argues in The Triumph of Conservatism that the forces of competition in the free market of the late 1800s were too potent to allow Stan dard to cheat the public, stresses that “Standard treated the consumer with deference. [b]Crude and refined oil prices for consumers declined during the period Standard exercised greatest control of the industry . . .[/b]” [/quote] Oh, well, you don't say. It was a monopoly after all, how much could it have declined? We're all told monopolies are [i]always[/i] sick and evil, so, let's ask the market how much Standard Oil stole from the proletariat [quote]Between 1870 and 1885 the price of refined kerosene dropped from 26 cents to 8 cents per gallon. In the same period, the Standard Oil Company reduced the [refining] costs per gallon from almost 3 cents in 1870 to .452 cents in 1885.[/quote] Bastards. How about pricing collusion? South Improvement Company in 1872 provides at least some evidence that they did, but, then again the prices fell dramatically over 15 years, so, some conspiracy that was, huh. There are cases exactly like this throughout the entire industrial era, prices being lowered dramatically, life expectancy increasing, people's real wages rising. Such a horrible, horrible time indeed. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32384850']It would do as it intended: distribute wealth through economic resource trade up until the inevitable collapse when a unrestricted upper class controls too much of the wealth, or mismanagement on the part of the upper class and resource-holders tumbles the fragile house of cards, [b]as seen in the depressions and recent recessions.[/b][/quote] You can't possibly expect anyone to take this seriously, can you? Oh yeah, 2000-2008 United States marketplace - Laissez-faire through and through. You heard it here folks, Socialism is recession proof. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32384850']However, socialism on the other hand creates a democratic environment by which the masses will, in total, work towards their own benefit by using the resource-controlling elected government to redistributed resources and promote their own well-being without the influences of corporate greed nor individual resource-hoarding. The government would rely on the people to give it its power, while the people rely on the government to fulfill their wants and needs through redistribution of resources. It takes the 'greed-incentive' of capitalism and makes the 'mutual voluntary societal welfare' of communism work. People want the be happy, they want material goods, and socialism would allow them to receive what they as a whole want on an individual level, for the entirety.[/QUOTE] First of all, the government isn't given power by "the people", it's given power by at least half of "the people", some other systems work differently than ours but the fact is not all can be happy at any one time, especially if they disagree with you. Second, "without the influences of corporate greed nor individual resource-hoarding", holy fuck what kind of fantasy fairy tale candy land do you live in? You can't be this naive. How much trust do you really lay on the government? You think the government is made of god-like altruistic people with the best of intentions? On the other hand, "the people" control corporations, so long as they're given the power to do so, so long as the government does not crowd-out, subsidize, favor that corporation or shut down competition in the forms of miscellaneous regulations. Elections are held every day, and they put on quite the campaign. It's called advertising. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32384850']'mutual voluntary societal welfare' of communism[/quote] Please, do go on. How is anything about communism or socialism voluntary at all?
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;32386622]In true communism, wouldn't there be no property ownership anyway?[/QUOTE] All property within the state would be owned collectively, so no, but no one individual could own one thing, so yes. A bit of a paradox. There would would be no individual property rights. I haven't delved much into the theory, so if I'm wrong on this expand.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32386822]All property within the state would be owned collectively, so no, but no one individual could own one thing, so yes. A bit of a paradox. There would would be no individual property rights. I haven't delved much into the theory, so if I'm wrong on this expand.[/QUOTE] That refers to the means of production. Your neighbor doesn't own your house.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32386822]All property within the state would be owned collectively, so no, but no one individual could own one thing, so yes. A bit of a paradox. There would would be no individual property rights. I haven't delved much into the theory, so if I'm wrong on this expand.[/QUOTE] There do exist forms of anarchistic communism and socialism, I'm not entirely sure what their deal is. I haven't read too much into it, but from what I've gathered from left-libertarians and anarcho-syndicalists is that they're hoping a magical pixy removes the incentive to obtain property from man's mind. No government involved, somehow.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32386848]There do exist forms of anarchistic communism and socialism, I'm not entirely sure what their deal is. I haven't read too much into it, but from what I've gathered from left-libertarians and anarcho-syndicalists is that they're hoping a magical pixy removes the incentive to obtain property from man's mind.[/QUOTE] All forms of communism are anarchistic afaik. Marx thought that once communism was finally implemented, the state would not be necessary anymore and would just wither away.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32386856]All forms of communism are anarchistic afaik. Marx thought that once communism was finally implemented, the state would not be necessary anymore and would just wither away.[/QUOTE] Do you have a specific source I could read on this? I mean, that's kind of vague. I know Marx was all "scientific" and didn't like to "predict" what communism might look like, but, how? It's a pretty big hole.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32386879]Do you have a specific source I could read on this? I mean, that's kind of vague. I know Marx was all "scientific" and didn't like to "predict" what communism might look like, but, how? It's a pretty big hole.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm#s4[/url]
[QUOTE=s0beit;32386879]Do you have a specific source I could read on this? I mean, that's kind of vague. I know Marx was all "scientific" and didn't like to "predict" what communism might look like, but, how? It's a pretty big hole.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1970/xx/state.html[/url]
Neither are particularly good. you've got to have a good balance or the whole thing will just fall apart
[QUOTE=s0beit;32386771]You read too many sensationalist books. Did you stop to actually ask yourself what the circumstances of that era were? It's statements like these that force me to ask if you've [i]ever[/i] even considered reading into the other side of the debate on this issue. I suspect you haven't, and I suspect you'll be blindsided.[/quote] K. Let's see then. [quote] but please, don't take this bourgeois slob's word for it, let's ask a Socialist historian: Oh, well, you don't say. It was a monopoly after all, how much could it have declined? We're all told monopolies are [i]always[/i] sick and evil, so, let's ask the market how much Standard Oil stole from the proletariat Bastards. How about pricing collusion? South Improvement Company in 1872 provides at least some evidence that they did, but, then again the prices fell dramatically over 15 years, so, some conspiracy that was, huh. There are cases exactly like this throughout the entire industrial era, prices being lowered dramatically, life expectancy increasing, people's real wages rising. Such a horrible, horrible time indeed. [/quote] Let me first say that the example of one single major company does not represent the entire nation, the entire group, nor the picture as a whole. The years were filled with profiteers, both corrupt and not, and distinctly lacked workers rights, desegregation, and had strong limitations on individual rights for the poor. There was very clear and distinct classism and racism, and a strong lack of education. Don't forget that this was the age wherein those in favor of corporate expansion were also those in favor of segregation, racial subjugation, lower minimal wages, no unions, no strikes, no set working hours, no monopoly protections, in favor of slavery before my mentioned time period, children laborers, women laborers, no disability payment, no benefits, and lower taxation. Just because the major corporations at the time were willing and able to pay little more to their workers as their profits and technology increased doe snot mean this was the case everywhere, and it certainly was not the case in 1900-1930. [quote]You can't possibly expect anyone to take this seriously, can you? Oh yeah, 2000-2008 United States marketplace - Laissez-faire through and through. You heard it here folks, Socialism is recession proof.[/quote] Well, if the world was a socialist system, then yes, for the most part it would be recession proof, or at least the recession we know of in capitalism. But to respond to your smart-ass comment, I was not referring to today's economy nor the conditions that brought the recession as lassaiz-faire at all, but rather attacking the ownership of wealth and the exceptional greed by the rich few that caused the housing bubble and the recession in general in the US as part of the problem of capitalism. You do not need to be lassez-faire to have problems with a strong free-market economy. [quote]First of all, the government isn't given power by "the people", it's given power by at least half of "the people", some other systems work differently than ours but the fact is not all can be happy at any one time, especially if they disagree with you. Second, "without the influences of corporate greed nor individual resource-hoarding", holy fuck what kind of fantasy fairy tale candy land do you live in? You can't be this naive.[/quote] No, not everyone can be happy at one time, but the point is to allow for and help the most be happy as possible. And yes, government, in a system based on election, is given power by the population. They choose who is in office, who makes laws, who votes on the issues, and who keeps their influence. I believe that the phrase "of the people, by the people" stands for something. And a fully socialist economy, with nationalized business, would indeed be mostly free from the influences of corporate greed and the excessively rich. [quote]How much trust do you really lay on the government? You think the government is made of god-like altruistic people with the best of intentions?[/quote] I'd rather trust the government, whose very existence lies on their ability to provide for the people that they are responsible for, and are given power by, as I've already stated my belief in above, than an individual or group of individuals whose influence comes from their ability to be greedy and gain profit from the labor of others. The very nature of their influence comes from their own self-interest. [quote]On the other hand, "the people" control corporations, so long as they're given the power to do so, so long as the government does not crowd-out, subsidize, favor that corporation or shut down competition in the forms of miscellaneous regulations. Elections are held every day, and they put on quite the campaign. It's called advertising.[/quote] You are right, for the most part. A mixed economy allows for this, mostly. It is true that corporations that make bad moves will die out due to economic losses. But in a strong free-market system, where corporations are able to influence individual lives by their holding and distributing of resources, this is not quite the case. We don't have the strongest capitalist system with out mixed economy, but it is strong. Since we are apparently unable to talk about anything except lassez-faire, as you made clear above, then why not look at Nigeria, Niger, Vietnam, and Latin America, and how their strong free-market capitalist economies fare for their citizens? Where there is a hands-off or weak government, and strong economic entities, then there is wage-slavery and corruption. [quote]Please, do go on. How is anything about communism or socialism voluntary at all?[/QUOTE] Read my post above on the different views on communsim for a better understanding of what side of socialism and communism I'm on, because I have a feeling you only see USSRs.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32387032'] Let me first say that the example of one single major company does not represent the entire nation, the entire group, nor the picture as a whole. The years were filled with profiteers, both corrupt and not, and distinctly lacked workers rights, desegregation, and had strong limitations on individual rights for the poor. There was very clear and distinct classism and racism, and a strong lack of education. Don't forget that this was the age wherein those in favor of corporate expansion were also those in favor of segregation, racial subjugation, lower minimal wages, no unions, no strikes, no set working hours, no monopoly protections, in favor of slavery before my mentioned time period, children laborers, women laborers, no disability payment, no benefits, and lower taxation. Just because the major corporations at the time were willing and able to pay little more to their workers as their profits and technology increased doe snot mean this was the case everywhere, and it certainly was not the case in 1900-1930.[/quote] Monopoly protections aren't needed in my view, neither is protection of workers. Their rights, perhaps, I don't mind a good union. The government doesn't need to assume those responsibilities though, and they certainly shouldn't be assisting unions actively through legislation such as forcing people to join a union to get a job. "Women laborers"? Do you have a problem with women working, or...? Child labor was on the decline, BIG TIME during industrialization. Just because it was bitched about by socialists of the day as being a hot button topic doesn't mean it was as rampant as say, 50 or 100 years before. Totally blown out of proportion, those laws weren't needed either, and I'd be happy to explain that. For a quick thought exercise though: All of a sudden, child labor is legal. What happens? Do we dump all of the kids out of grade school and into the nearest factory? I'm not going to respond to every one of your arguments because frankly, I'd have to write a fucking book to explain why all of your arguments are individually wrong, but, "it certainly was not the case in 1900-1930", so very wrong again. The standard of living also dramatically increased during that time in terms of technology, survival and the ability to not starve. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32387032']Well, if the world was a socialist system, then yes, for the most part it would be recession proof, or at least the recession we know of in capitalism.[/quote] You'll need to explain this, I can't wait. Please be as detailed as possible, I'm popping my corn. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32387032']But to respond to your smart-ass comment, I was not referring to today's economy nor the conditions that brought the recession as lassaiz-faire at all, but rather attacking the ownership of wealth and the exceptional greed by the rich few that caused the housing bubble and the recession in general in the US as part of the problem of capitalism. You do not need to be lassez-faire to have problems with a strong free-market economy.[/quote] "Exceptional greed by the rich" is absolute revisionist history. Banks were pressured AND incentivised to give people loans who couldn't possibly pay, the only people who KNEW the bubble was coming explained in detail exactly what happened prior to and during the housing bubble. The people who claim "greed" did it, never saw it coming, grasp at straws to justify the claim and are intellectual morons. The ownership of wealth had nothing to do with it. Please, without bringing the market system into it, explain in rich detail how distribution of housing would work in your ideal government. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32387032']No, not everyone can be happy at one time, but the point is to allow for and help the most be happy as possible. And yes, government, in a system based on election, is given power by the population. They choose who is in office, who makes laws, who votes on the issues, and who keeps their influence. I believe that the phrase "of the people, by the people" stands for something. And a fully socialist economy, with nationalized business, would indeed be mostly free from the influences of corporate greed and the excessively rich.[/quote] No, the power is given to the *majority*, that's far and away from "the people". The majority throughout history has not been kind, it has not been altruistic, and it has not been fair to everyone. The phrase "equal under the law" stands for something too, not that you'd be able to infer it's true meaning with your socialist glasses on. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32387032']I'd rather trust the government, whose very existence lies on their ability to provide for the people that they are responsible for, and are given power by, as I've already stated my belief in above, than an individual or group of individuals whose influence comes from their ability to be greedy and gain profit from the labor of others. The very nature of their influence comes from their own self-interest.[/quote] See, I'd agree with you, but historically you are completely wrong. The government has historically (especially in democracies) hardly ever served the people. Tell me now, which country would you say serves only the people? If you pick one, is it the ideal? What about the many, many exceptions all around the globe? Governments do not have a squeaky clean record of being altruistic, in fact, of all the civilizations existing currently, and those that have fallen, none of them depict the fantasy world you have concocted and let me spoil it for you, it never, ever will. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32387032']You are right, for the most part. A mixed economy allows for this, mostly. It is true that corporations that make bad moves will die out due to economic losses. But in a strong free-market system, where corporations are able to influence individual lives by their holding and distributing of resources, this is not quite the case. We don't have the strongest capitalist system with out mixed economy, but it is strong. Since we are apparently unable to talk about anything except lassez-faire, as you made clear above, then why not look at Nigeria, Niger, Vietnam, and Latin America, and how their strong free-market capitalist economies fare for their citizens? Where there is a hands-off or weak government, and strong economic entities, then there is wage-slavery and corruption.[/quote] Actually, none of those countries are "free-market". I don't know what your perception of a free market is, but somehow Vietnam got in there. Either you are deliberately being dishonest or you are an insane person. I would go through each country, one by one, and refute it but why bother at all really? Also corporations do not "influence individual lives by their holding and distributing of resources", individuals directly direct the distribution of resources in a market economy. They are the consumers, that's sort of how it works. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32387032']Read my post above on the different views on communsim for a better understanding of what side of socialism and communism I'm on, because I have a feeling you only see USSRs.[/QUOTE] Well you mentioned state control of companies and a strong government, so, tell me how your ideal government differs from the USSR sans buying a ton of nukes.
I realize the topic is communism vs capitalism in essence, but i think the question is pretty silly when you boil it down. Their problems have already been detailed fairly well in this thread, but it boils down to one thing. Both are old political and societal ideologies that base themselves on nothing physical, nothing real. Its like trying to apply philosophy or a hypothesis to the real world while skipping the scientific experiment and testing part. Look at our progress, we are growing organs in labs and attaching robotic arms to amputees that read their signals from their brain. Its time for something completely new, something with real physical referent and scientific basis. Our social, economic, and government systems are overdue for a major overhaul, it feels like those systems are the only things scientific thought hasn't touched yet. We have science breaking down the doors of the human mind (not quite the brain yet), why is there the stigma of science being thought of as "cold" not an issue to psychologists or ad companies doing research on children to see what colors will get their product to sell the best. Then when you bring up applying it to our society its laughed off or thought of as fascism. Unfortunately the same point from JonnyMo1 on the first page applies to every possible change, "... it requires a big long chain of radical social change leading up to it for it to work." I guess all we can do right now is try and spread scientific thought and push for more education. I'm a big fan of the resource based world economy described in the venus project and zeitgeist movements. Its not communism, and its not capitalism, it is pretty much what i described earlier, based on technical, physical, and scientific reference. Its possible that the RBE will be the future we live in... Thankfully, because of the embracing of science and reason, even if it isn't THE perfect prediction anyone who supports it will see the merit of any other system that comes along with the same basis in physical reality. Its nice not to have political dogma involved. [editline]20th September 2011[/editline] [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16970274/sobidiot.png[/img] Really?
[QUOTE=s0beit;32387266]Monopoly protections aren't needed in my view, neither is protection of workers. Their rights, perhaps, I don't mind a good union. The government doesn't need to assume those responsibilities though, and they certainly shouldn't be assisting unions actively through legislation such as forcing people to join a union to get a job.[/quote] Arguably. Forced unionization isn't my preferred method, at all, but there is a significant difference in the benefits and income towards the positive for states without right to work. And the government does, for if they don't do their primary function of protecting the well being of their people, then what is there for them to do? [quote]"Women laborers"? Do you have a problem with women working, or...?[/quote] Sorry, I should have worded it differently. I meant that they abused women laborers. That was my fault for not wording what I was trying to say. [quote]Child labor was on the decline, BIG TIME during industrialization. Just because it was bitched about by socialists of the day as being a hot button topic doesn't mean it was as rampant as say, 50 or 100 years before. Totally blown out of proportion, those laws weren't needed either, and I'd be happy to explain that. For a quick thought exercise though: All of a sudden, child labor is legal. What happens? Do we dump all of the kids out of grade school and into the nearest factory?[/quote] Arguably while there were limitations, prevention or outright opposition to child labour didn't come about until the late 20s and 30s, thanks in no small part to the growing labour movement. Between 1900 and 1910, child labor increased, and decreases did not come about until afterwards. This only happened thanks to a combination of state legislation and government refusal to buy goods made with child labor. I don't get what or why you're saying? Child labour isn't legal, but should it be, then I would expect there would be child labourer. Definitely not to the extent of the early 1900s and late 1800s, but with the high poverty rate, you would definitely see a return of child labour by families who need every cent to get by on. An unfortunate truth. The concept of wage slavery. [quote]I'm not going to respond to every one of your arguments because frankly, I'd have to write a fucking book to explain why all of your arguments are individually wrong, but, "it certainly was not the case in 1900-1930", so very wrong again. The standard of living also dramatically increased during that time in terms of technology, survival and the ability to not starve.[/quote] Small increases in the standard of living do not mean that society as a whole is improving the way it should be. If those increases come because of mass exploitation then this is not advancement. Because people could afford small apartments instead of street-level shacks and 2 loafs of bread a day instead of one does not mean that their lives were significantly better. The fact of the matter was that there was poverty, disease, in-access to medicine, food scarcity among the lower class, little to no education, no healthcare, no safety precautions, no disability insurance, and plenty of disability caused by unsafe conditions. If you're seriously trying to justify that system and its methods because it made the lives of the overall happier by a small amount, but only because it exploited its way there, then I think you need to rearrange your priorities to benefiting the people first, then benefiting the capitalists. [quote]You'll need to explain this, I can't wait. Please be as detailed as possible, I'm popping my corn.[/quote] A recession is simply a low in economic activity and growth. While recessions would exist because of the natural cycle, it would not, in theory, have the effects of a capitalistic system. A recession in a fully nationalized world, if it were to happen at all, would be characterized by a controlled and planned shift in industry and business to whatever is needed to fix it. Unemployment too high? Jobs are created (ie, China's current actions). Void in a certain service? Move workers into it. The idea is that because the system is not reliant on individual and separate companies to stabilize the system through competition and accepted fair practices, then the economy in its entirety can be controlled and people can be shifted and educated to work in areas needed for recovery or prevention. This is one of the primary benefits of a controlled and centrally planned economy. This is something I learned in my freshman economics class first, actually. In the one page they devoted in the book to centrally planned economies. [quote]"Exceptional greed by the rich" is absolute revisionist history. Banks were pressured AND incentivised to give people loans who couldn't possibly pay, the only people who KNEW the bubble was coming explained in detail exactly what happened prior to and during the housing bubble. The people who claim "greed" did it, never saw it coming, grasp at straws to justify the claim and are intellectual morons. The ownership of wealth had nothing to do with it. Please, without bringing the market system into it, explain in rich detail how distribution of housing would work in your ideal government.[/quote] Well, for instance, currently there's millions of empty homes. There's also many in poverty and homelessness. Reallocate those in need to empty homes, and build homes for those who do not. It's not a difficult concept. Housing would preferably be nationalized, and therefore owned by the government. Housing payment would be done through taxation of residents, at a relatively low level over the course of their stay. Should they choose to move to a home without residence, then they should be allowed, but depending on the size or land area of the home the rate of taxation for residency would increase. Those who could not afford taxation would be allowed alternative revenues such as more working hours or voluntary movement to a housing unit that they can pay. This is in a completely socialized system. I do not advocate a completely socialized system. A free housing market, for the most part, is harmless if the actions by investment firms and individual credit are closely monitored. [quote]No, the power is given to the *majority*, that's far and away from "the people". The majority throughout history has not been kind, it has not been altruistic, and it has not been fair to everyone.[/quote] This is true, however given protections that can not be removed, such as what we see in our constitution, then the majority can not remove the rights of the minority. The minority plays a role just as much as the majority. It contributes to the election process and to the policy making of the nation. While the majority has the most power, the idea of giving minorities equal ground in relation to their numbers is something that capitalism tends to stray away from. [quote]The phrase "equal under the law" stands for something too, not that you'd be able to infer it's true meaning with your socialist glasses on.[/quote] Sure bud. Since I can't fathom that you're trying to say that I don't understand minority equality under the law, something socialists heavily contributed to in this country, then I assume that you're referring to businesses and the individuals that run them, and the limitation of their liberties to do so in a socialist system? [quote]See, I'd agree with you, but historically you are completely wrong. The government has historically (especially in democracies) hardly ever served the people. Tell me now, which country would you say serves only the people? If you pick one, is it the ideal? What about the many, many exceptions all around the globe? Governments do not have a squeaky clean record of being altruistic, in fact, of all the civilizations existing currently, and those that have fallen, none of them depict the fantasy world you have concocted and let me spoil it for you, it never, ever will.[/quote] No country that exists today serves only the people, and because of the current trend of human thought there will not be a government that serves only the people for a while. Giving more power to the people as a whole, and less to those with wealth, would allow for those who serve the people best to be given their positions more, for longer, and more frequently. Your problem with democratic governments not serving their people stems from the influence of the profiteers and wealth-holders being given influence and power, and using that to benefit themselves. In a system where the goal is to become rich and powerful, government is the freeway to such a goal. Those with wealth and influence use it to use the government for their own benefit. The reason that these governments do not always help their people is because these governments are avenue for the rich to help themselves. But if you wanted me to choose, I would say that for the most part, some of the social democracies of Europe, specifically Scandanavian, would be closest to a government that looks after its people the best, hence the term welfare state. [quote]Actually, none of those countries are "free-market". I don't know what your perception of a free market is, but somehow Vietnam got in there. Either you are deliberately being dishonest or you are an insane person. I would go through each country, one by one, and refute it but why bother at all really?[/quote] Actually, Vietnam is one of the worst capitalist nations on the planet, not because it allows a free market in its own nation, but because its entire economy relies on the competition of foreign corporations that use the nation and its low wages and minimal labor rights to maximize profits. I didn't think it was any secret that shoe and clothing corporations exploit the Vietnamese working class. This is the same story for many African and Latin American nations, as well as China, whose domestic industry is all nationalized, but relies very heavily on foreign MNCs. State capitalism. [quote]Also corporations do not "influence individual lives by their holding and distributing of resources", individuals directly direct the distribution of resources in a market economy. They are the consumers, that's sort of how it works.[/quote] If you have two major corporations competing on the same product-base, then you can only choose between these two products. If these two corporations are the only corporations able to sufficiently provide an income to a worker, then the worker must work there to make a living. The illusion of consumerism as choice only extends as far as an economy with extreme competition across hundreds of major competitors in the same product, which is fanciful given that that same competition would kill off the majority. While we have less of a problem in the US with this, poorer nations are subjected to wage slave-based economies. [quote]Well you mentioned state control of companies and a strong government, so, tell me how your ideal government differs from the USSR sans buying a ton of nukes.[/QUOTE] The USSR was not democratic, nor did it allow for any free markets at any level. I believe a minor free market of the lower and working classes, small businesses, that is, is healthy for an economy, for the most part. The USSR also suffered from imperialistic nature, something that the left blames on capitalism. And while this wasn't due to capitalism, the USSR did suffer from state capitalism. Leftists who oppose the USSR will argue that the Soviet economy was not genuinely socialist, as it was the government profiteering from supposedly nationalized monopolies, and in that way was a capitalist system without a free-market economy. State capitalism, the term is. The term has been changed to fit China and Vietnam since its initial usage, but it all comes down to a socialized state profiteering off corporations, and not controlling them.
Personally, I prefer a mix of the two, with a bit more focus on Socialism. Social Democracy has proved to be the most efficient system yet, if you look at Scandinavia. Sweden has the lowest Gini-coefficient in the world, and Norway isn't far behind. Both of these countries grew and prospered under Social Democratic rule, surely this can't be a coincidence?
Geniune free market anarchy would be great. But sadly the institutions in place, masquerading as the "Free Market" are nothing but detrimental to society. I'm of the opinion that a genuine free market and genuine classless, statelessness would be identical.
Both are too extreme, a better society is where effort is rewarded, but everyone has enough to live comfortably.
If effort [I]was[/I] rewarded, absolutely everyone except the mentally ill and physically disabled would live comfortably.
[QUOTE=cccritical;32386407]Communism would be ideal if it didn't break every single time.[/quote] I'm not a communist but it really hasn't been tried all that many times. [quote] A lot of communism supporters here will say "but there's never been a REAL communist government!" but have never defined 'true communism.' From the vague bits that they have said about it I've understood it to mean more anarchy than communism, which is another thing - what is the difference between communism and anarchy? In a perfect communist society, wouldn't their be no government? Wouldn't the people be autonomous? Isn't that what anarchy is supposed to be? I haven't payed much attention to either besides the past catastrophes they've caused so I'm sorry if I don't understand them fully.[/QUOTE] I think what they are talking about is an anarchy but where everyone is making resources together or something. Its non capitalistic anarchy. I guess you could call how some native american tribes this but so far I don't know of it being tride in a modern day environment. Would make a cool study if anyone ever wanted to see how something liek that would work in small scale. Oh and it might just be me but did they take rating out of the mass debate section? I don't see any and if they did I think its a good idea.
[video=youtube;7QDv4sYwjO0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0[/video] I feel this way about the whole subject. I'd rather be 100% equal than be unprotected in the economy.
Some social experiments actually exist like that, imasillypiggy. They're called communes and they're actually really interesting. The one that comes to mind is where they tried to create classlessness by making a pact not to affiliate themselves with the other people in the commune directly. Long story short it ended up with the quieter people basically being subtly bullied by the more extroverted people. Very fascinating stuff. I can't remember what conclusion I drew from hearing about it but I remember becoming a bit more anarchistic afterwards. I heard about it in [url=http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6457676/BBC_All_Watched_Over_By_Machines_Of_Loving_Grace]this documentary.[/url] Honestly, I'd recommend watching it probably more than any vaguely political/philosophical documentary I've ever watched; it's so genuinely thought provoking. Watch it now. When I watched it it seemed to push me more into anarchism than communism, but it strikes me as the kind of documentary that would yield different results in different people.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;32387512] [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16970274/sobidiot.png[/img] Really?[/QUOTE] Yes, really, a resource based economy is fucking retarded and you should feel bad. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32391979']Arguably. Forced unionization isn't my preferred method, at all, but there is a significant difference in the benefits and income towards the positive for states without right to work. And the government does, for if they don't do their primary function of protecting the well being of their people, then what is there for them to do?[/quote] Right to work states have their advantages too, like being able to actually find a job if the union doesn't want to accept you. Unions aren't an open-door policy, and depending which side of the ideological isle you're on they'd force you to pay dues to them for something you may not even support, or else you lose your job. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32391979']Arguably while there were limitations, prevention or outright opposition to child labour didn't come about until the late 20s and 30s, thanks in no small part to the growing labour movement. Between 1900 and 1910, child labor increased, and decreases did not come about until afterwards. This only happened thanks to a combination of state legislation and government refusal to buy goods made with child labor. I don't get what or why you're saying? Child labour isn't legal, but should it be, then I would expect there would be child labourer. Definitely not to the extent of the early 1900s and late 1800s, but with the high poverty rate, you would definitely see a return of child labour by families who need every cent to get by on. An unfortunate truth. The concept of wage slavery.[/quote] No, not the concept of "wage slavery", the concept of "economic reality". First of all, yes, it would not be nearly as bad as the 1900s, but why? You don't care to explain that? My point was, the richer the society becomes through industrial means, the more capital one person can command with less labor, the less children have to work to keep their family from starving. Also, no, poor people are poor but no parent wants their children to work in a factory. I had a single parent with a low wage income and I still went to school, she wouldn't have sent me to the coal mines either. She did *let* me work summers, sometimes, so i could save money for my own electronics and gadgets (this is when I was 12 and 14 respectively) but by no means was I forced to do anything, and by no means did I consider it "slavery". See, the fact is, you don't see mass starvation in the first world because people's labor can command so much capital that a law banning child labor won't starve people, the government had no say about it, it's reality. If all of the machinery was gone from our country tomorrow no law would be able to stop child labor, beside the fact the government wouldn't be able to track it with no machines of their own, people would be starving to such a degree that children would have to work anyway. That's why child labor is so prevalent in countries with smaller economies, it isn't because the parents stink, it's because if you lose 1/3 of the family income you die. Dead. End of the road. That's why passing laws against child labor in Bangladesh didn't improve their quality of life, that's why children starved, sold drugs or went into prostitution. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32391979']Small increases in the standard of living do not mean that society as a whole is improving the way it should be. If those increases come because of mass exploitation then this is not advancement. Because people could afford small apartments instead of street-level shacks and 2 loafs of bread a day instead of one does not mean that their lives were significantly better. The fact of the matter was that there was poverty, disease, in-access to medicine, food scarcity among the lower class, little to no education, no healthcare, no safety precautions, no disability insurance, and plenty of disability caused by unsafe conditions. If you're seriously trying to justify that system and its methods because it made the lives of the overall happier by a small amount, but only because it exploited its way there, then I think you need to rearrange your priorities to benefiting the people first, then benefiting the capitalists.[/quote] You do realize you're taking the image of today and casting it on one hundred years ago? Of course they could only afford small apartments, houses were too fucking expensive to make, of course there was poverty, disease, medicine issues and food scarcity, the society didn't produce enough of those things (that and medical technology was severely lacking, specifically), education was a luxury because people had to work to survive, because that was [b][i]reality[/i][/b], healthcare was also a commodity people could ill afford often times because it was expensive, not because of the evil greedy capitalist doctors, but because the resources at the doctor's disposal was not as easy to obtain as it is today. I'm not advocating for that system today, it's not possible, we have too much industry. It wouldn't possibly happen today. Tell me, what could would socialism do in medieval times? Would there not be food shortages, poverty, lack of education, lack of housing? It has [b]nothing[/b] to do with capitalism and [b]everything[/b] to do with the resources one person can command at any given time. Do you have any concept at all of how much people earn in our country today as opposed to 100 years ago? Do you [i]honestly[/i] think the government did that? What you consider deplorable now, in comparison to your own cozy lifestyle was a massive increase in living for them, it's all relative. Your dream home today, in one hundred years will seem to those people like a mud and tar shack to them. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32391979']A recession is simply a low in economic activity and growth. While recessions would exist because of the natural cycle, it would not, in theory, have the effects of a capitalistic system. A recession in a fully nationalized world, if it were to happen at all, would be characterized by a controlled and planned shift in industry and business to whatever is needed to fix it. Unemployment too high? Jobs are created (ie, China's current actions). Void in a certain service? Move workers into it. The idea is that because the system is not reliant on individual and separate companies to stabilize the system through competition and accepted fair practices, then the economy in its entirety can be controlled and people can be shifted and educated to work in areas needed for recovery or prevention. This is one of the primary benefits of a controlled and centrally planned economy. This is something I learned in my freshman economics class first, actually. In the one page they devoted in the book to centrally planned economies.[/quote] Ah, well, that explains it. Your professor is a fucking moron. I now no longer hold you personally responsible for the propaganda and falsehoods you spew from your mouth hole. Centrally planned economies will never work as planned. Never. I'd hate to break it to you, and your professor who is in love with Marx, but without a pricing system you can never efficiently place resources where demand exists. Never. Even the socialists of the 1930s conceded this point to economists of the time. "Unemployment too high? Jobs are created" "Void in a certain service? Move workers into it." by who's demand? If we're talking about a command economy, you can't ever know where workers belong. I could explain it, but this guy does it far better than I could given the time constraints: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6c11sREuEc[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLSxITH-1tE[/media] I can however explain more about this as I'm sure you're quiz me on the matter, go for it. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32391979']Well, for instance, currently there's millions of empty homes. There's also many in poverty and homelessness. Reallocate those in need to empty homes, and build homes for those who do not. It's not a difficult concept. Housing would preferably be nationalized, and therefore owned by the government. Housing payment would be done through taxation of residents, at a relatively low level over the course of their stay. Should they choose to move to a home without residence, then they should be allowed, but depending on the size or land area of the home the rate of taxation for residency would increase. Those who could not afford taxation would be allowed alternative revenues such as more working hours or voluntary movement to a housing unit that they can pay. This is in a completely socialized system. I do not advocate a completely socialized system. A free housing market, for the most part, is harmless if the actions by investment firms and individual credit are closely monitored.[/quote] I suggest you look at this, you evidently have never bothered: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem[/url] You can't just "know" where resources belong, demand alone does not do this. Prices are a mix of the availability and demand of resources and the amount of resources one person commands with their own labor, just giving people stuff doesn't work for several reasons. You are dooming yourself to mass shortages and random abundance of goods nobody wants. If, for example, you provide infinite homes to the homeless, isn't there a lack of give and take in that situation? You are talking about building houses for people who don't put anything themselves back into the economy, can't you see how that'd be a problem, at all? [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32391979']This is true, however given protections that can not be removed, such as what we see in our constitution, then the majority can not remove the rights of the minority. The minority plays a role just as much as the majority. It contributes to the election process and to the policy making of the nation. While the majority has the most power, the idea of giving minorities equal ground in relation to their numbers is something that capitalism tends to stray away from.[/quote] The constitution is a piece of paper, a promise from our government to not violate our most basic rights. Yeah, didn't work out so well. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32391979']Sure bud. Since I can't fathom that you're trying to say that I don't understand minority equality under the law, something socialists heavily contributed to in this country, then I assume that you're referring to businesses and the individuals that run them, and the limitation of their liberties to do so in a socialist system?[/quote] Equal under the law means people are treated equally under the law. UNDER THE LAW. Meaning, no special justice for anyone, no negative justice for anyone else. "Justice is blind", is another way to put it. To you, justice is not blind. People do not receive equal treatment under the law, they receive treatment under the law such as you deem fitting to the circumstances at any given time. This means minorities don't get special treatment, nor do the rich, nor do the police, nor do the politicians. I love how I predicted that you'd completely miss the point. If you were smarter you might have argued against "equal under the law", but, like i said, I didn't expect you to infer it's true meaning. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32391979']No country that exists today serves only the people, and because of the current trend of human thought there will not be a government that serves only the people for a while. Giving more power to the people as a whole, and less to those with wealth, would allow for those who serve the people best to be given their positions more, for longer, and more frequently. Your problem with democratic governments not serving their people stems from the influence of the profiteers and wealth-holders being given influence and power, and using that to benefit themselves. In a system where the goal is to become rich and powerful, government is the freeway to such a goal. Those with wealth and influence use it to use the government for their own benefit. The reason that these governments do not always help their people is because these governments are avenue for the rich to help themselves. But if you wanted me to choose, I would say that for the most part, some of the social democracies of Europe, specifically Scandanavian, would be closest to a government that looks after its people the best, hence the term welfare state.[/quote] People like me don't understand what you mean by "Giving more power to the people as a whole, and less to those with wealth". People with wealth are also people, people who usually have contributed a great amount to society. You see them as the enemy while we see them as people, you'd find this concept laughable but to us, it isn't. The only way a corporation can actually deprive you of things is to infect the government, a problem that Communism and Socialism do not solve. It's all relative, once again. In nation where laws are determined by local communities there would be far more people to corrupt and corruption of other states would be externalized, but, ignoring this completely, let's move on to the comparison between corruption in socialist economies and capitalist economies. 1) In the capitalist economy, people who have contributed a great amount to the world in the form of allocating goods properly and to peoples desires infiltrate the government and receive special favors. 2) In the socialist economy, people who have contributed virtually nothing to society and who are only in a position of power on the basis of their political clout receive special favors. I know which one I'd pick, given a choice between the two. Of course, stripping the power from government the ability to obtain positions of power which can grant favors to companies would be the ideal, instead, you turn to more government and put into position of great power even still more corruptible individuals. It is nonsensical. Unless of course you think corruption in socialist economies would be a thing of the past, in which case I will proceed to laugh aloud. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32391979']Actually, Vietnam is one of the worst capitalist nations on the planet, not because it allows a free market in its own nation, but because its entire economy relies on the competition of foreign corporations that use the nation and its low wages and minimal labor rights to maximize profits. I didn't think it was any secret that shoe and clothing corporations exploit the Vietnamese working class. This is the same story for many African and Latin American nations, as well as China, whose domestic industry is all nationalized, but relies very heavily on foreign MNCs. State capitalism.[/quote] First of all, it is not a capitalist nation. It has many many problems with it's market that not a single 'free marketer' would advocate. That aside, here we are, back to the amount of labor people can command. If we moved all of our industry into Vietnam would people have a better life there? You bet your ass they would. They'd be living large. Why is it not possible to do that? You're applying socialism to the global level now, so what do you propose? I'd like to hear it. However, as it stands as a matter of fact, right now, the people there have job opportunities not on par with us because they lack the industrial power. If anything, those people need freer markets and more companies to "exploit" them, so they can in turn build their own economy up with the resources that they've earned and provide a better quality of life for everyone in their nation. No amount of shuffling of resources away from the bourgeois is going to make everyone in Vietnam as rich as people in the United states. [b]None[/b]. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32391979']If you have two major corporations competing on the same product-base, then you can only choose between these two products. If these two corporations are the only corporations able to sufficiently provide an income to a worker, then the worker must work there to make a living. The illusion of consumerism as choice only extends as far as an economy with extreme competition across hundreds of major competitors in the same product, which is fanciful given that that same competition would kill off the majority. While we have less of a problem in the US with this, poorer nations are subjected to wage slave-based economies.[/quote] You make my head hurt, do you know that? You can't be this dense, you just can't. How does something work on a larger scale and not a smaller scale? Of course it works exactly the same way, and of course it's beneficial to them though you [i]can't actually see it because you're stuck looking at a capitalist wonderland that is the United States[/i]. The problem is, consistently, you're comparing our market economy to that of a third world nation. [b]OF COURSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME THINGS WE DO, THEY DON'T COMMAND ENOUGH CAPITAL TO DO SO[/b]. You claim you've taken an economics course and yet you keep spouting economic fallacies and to you, it seems like economic theory has absolutely no place in the real world. Here; Stop using economic arguments, you aren't allowed to make them. You're like a christian picking and choosing from the bible. In your imaginary scenario if there was only two companies, it would seem advantageous to the capitalist to enter a market with very little competition where there is obviously room to improve. If there is demand, somebody will come along and make a better alternative so as to line their own pockets with the lost proceeds of the previous companies already existing. Also, there is never only two corporations. Maybe in one sector, but that's not the entire story. You're not telling the story of the farm worker who would kill to have a job in those factories because compared to his current conditions, it's a great increase in the standard of living, in both wages and the amount of hard labor he has to exert to obtain that capital. Would people in the United States work those jobs? Probably not, we have better alternatives, but that's because we've had roughly 200 years of economic development from the farm until now. They will too, in time, become industrial and be given options on par with us. Globalization of capitalism assists them in this, because capital investors from far away lands come and build factories and give them alternatives as well as more money than they would have had, had the capitalist not come at all. Here, thought experiment time: Let's say the capitalist wasn't "exploiting" the labor of third world countries, what jobs do you think they'd have? You're right, they wouldn't be working in the horrible sweat shops, instead, they'd be picking fruit and plowing land. It is always relative. What you want, it seems, is for the laws of economics to bend to your whim. You want immediate demand of their labor at prices equal to ours, which isn't [b]physically[/b] possible. It isn't a matter of rich people hording the money, it's a matter of being [b]physically[/b] productive with the resources at your disposal. Just as it's not [b]physically[/b] possible to tell the people of Vietnam to build a space ship or supercomputer, so too is it impossible for them to receive wages equal to ours.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;32383592]Communism would work perfectly in the world, but the greed and jealousy of mankind prevents it from working in the slightest. It would definitely work in a perfect world... ... Then again, there wouldn't be a need for government in a perfect world.[/QUOTE]Communism is by definition a society without a government.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32409006]Communism is by definition a society without a government.[/QUOTE] That's the exact opposite of the truth. Communism is a society where the government owns everything, no private businesses, no private property etc. Noun - A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
[QUOTE=Vandl92;32409284]That's the exact opposite of the truth. Communism is a society where the government owns everything, no private businesses, no private property etc. Noun - A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.[/QUOTE]Publicly owned =/= owned by the government, because the government doesn't exist in a communist society. Marx said a revolution was necessary to overthrow the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (i.e. capitalism). After the revolution the dictatorship of the proletariat would rule, and their duty is to abolish capitalism and replace it with a socialist economy. After this has been done, the government would be obsolete, and consequently dissolved.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32409006]Communism is by definition a society without a government.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ond kaja;32412252]Publicly owned =/= owned by the government, because the government doesn't exist in a communist society. Marx said a revolution was necessary to overthrow the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (i.e. capitalism). After the revolution the dictatorship of the proletariat would rule, and their duty is to abolish capitalism and replace it with a socialist economy. After this has been done, the government would be obsolete, and consequently dissolved.[/QUOTE] There is a form of government in a communist society, even in Marx's ideal society. In Marx' theory, when the society shifted (after overthrowing the oppressive capitalistic system), the remaining members of society would understand (based on their experience of oppression) that they needed to function in a way that was best for society as a whole. The government would not be obsolete, but rather reformed. It would function in a way that furthered the interests of that society. For example, the government for Marx is instrumental in distributing resources. It is important to remember that this society would not function under any free-market principles, and was therefore a planned economy. The planned economy described by Marx's theory required a government to do that planning.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.