In theory, communism is not a bad thing. Infact it is quite a great thing. Everyone is equal. All the money produced by the busineses of the country is put into a "pool" and the people of the country take what portion they need. Do you think that one day our government will one day be a a communistic govenment? Is it possible that one day our President will have to much power and destroy the very fondations that our govenment is built on? Wait a tic...that's an obvious question...
But there are no obvious answers...so what do you think?
-Tree
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I believe Communism can work only when we Humans get rid of our need for either Power, or Pre-emminance. As has been shown in the defunct Russian Communism and the current China, even if you eliminate the populace's ability to aquire material, there will still be leaders who have that ability as they will be able to decide who gets what; when, where, and how.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that communism will only work when the people are already acting Christ-like. But if they are like that, then you won't need communism.
Posted by lauraah (Member # 1930) on :
Communism is horrible theoretically as well as practically. Communism destroys personal responsibility and replaces it with communal responsibilty. For example in a capitalist society, a person must work hard to ensure that they are able to feed themsleves. If they don't, they fail and die. (This is theoretically, in truth, compassionate people will usually assist someone that is in dire need.) In communism, a person no longer has the same level of responsibility and knows that regardless the level of work he exerts, he will recieve the same compensation as his neighbor. He is thus far more likely to exert his full effort. This feeling typically increases over time as is demonstrated in Russia and China, where at first both countries' economies improved with communism, but gradually the utter lack of personal responsibility led it to dwindle. While many people say that such an attitude is immoral or that people need to strive for more than this, this is simply the way people are. Think about when you're in a classroom with a bunch of students and the teacher is asking questions and waiting for a response. It will usually take a moment or two for someone to raise their hand and respond, whereas if the teacher was speaking one on one with a student, the response would be much quicker. The responsibility for answering the question is moved from the communal to the personal level and thus people are more likely to respond. (Just as in capitalism, people are more likely to take an interest in exerting their full effor.)
Furthermore, just as communism takes away personal achievement, it takes away the pride of that personal achievement. When a person makes good decisions and efforts, they typically succeed. Even more important than material rewards for this, are the spiritual rewards of pride in one's self and self-esteem. In communism, such a reward is lessened greatly because there is no success or failure. Every one is made completely equal, regardless of their inequal decisions and worth to society.
Finally, I do believe that communism can work in small groups. In that case, you are not responsible to a large faceless, crowd. You are responsible to maybe a few neigbors, their families, and your family. Thus, you will work for the esteem of these people. While this may work practically, I still believe it is a bad idea because you are not working for the intrinsic rewards of self-esteem and a feeling of accomplishment. You are working for the extrinsic rewards of other's opinions of you, which no matter how positive can not be a substitute for rightly earned self-esteem.
:-) Laura :-)
[ April 05, 2004, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: lauraah ]
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
how about intrinsic rewards of having helped the people around you and pulled your weight? You can turn working motivations around to say capitalism encourages you to be greedy and self centered rather than working for the greater good. Either way, the purity of people's motivation seems to depend as much on the people as on the system they work under
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Even if you accept that Capitalism motivates people to work for greed, Communism does NOT motivate people to work for the common good. If you accept analysing the two systems on the basis of what they motivate, Communism doesn't even make the needle quiver.
Dagonee
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: Finally, I do believe that communism can work in small groups. In that case, you are not responsible to a large faceless, crowd.
I agree with that statement.
Is it a real quote or did someone I know just say "Communism is just a collection of mediocrity" and "Communism is the less than the sum of its parts"?
Hum. Communisim has practical problems because of the whole leader fades away theory. It's getting to that stage which is the problem. No one who gets into that position of absolute power wants to let go!
Posted by A Boy Named Tree (Member # 6382) on :
[QUOTE]I think that communism will only work when the people are already acting Christ-like. But if they are like that, then you won't need communism./QUOTE]
This ties in with the book The Giver. Aren't the people in that book living in a controlled government much like a comunistic one, every one is assigned a job, based on what things he/she likes to do..or am I getting that mixed up in somethnig else...
-Tree
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
It only works on paper. Just like anything else that applies to people.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Just a quick little caution about defining "commuism". Communism exists in many forms besides the popular conception of Marxist communism. Marx and Engels took it down a path that was extremely different from many of the theorists that came before them. Many people focus entirely on Marxism and its implementations. I don't think that this does the issue justice.
The conflict between Communism (or to use a wider term Socialism) and Market Capitalism is one that goes far beyond economic systems. They represent competing worldviews crudely summed up as collectivism and individualism. They also represent different views of human nature, with Market Capitalism taking it for granted that people are mainly motivated by desire for profit and Socialism expecting that, given the opportunity, people's social feelings will naturally come to the fore.
I think that both systems have their strengths and weaknesses and that the best "system" would cobine aspects of them both. For one thing, I don't believe that either of the basic assumptions about human nature I listed are true. People can and at high levels of maturity will be motivated by values such as social feeling and concerns for truth and justice, but this doesn't happen automatically. On the other hand, while people can and do work at the dog-training level of reward/punishment systems, the past 40 years of organizational psychology has shown that they work much better under other types of systems. Likeise, I believe that man has both an individualistic and collective nature and that do deny either is to end up with a malformed person.
In his book, The Affluent Society, John Kenneth Galbraith examines the possibilities afforded to a society that has become able to fully supply it's members with their basic needs. He points out that our current conceptions of Market Capitalism were formed in a world were starvation and deprivation were commonplace and tend to regard this state as inevitable. In Galbraith's estimation, a new sort of theory is needed for the best economic fit to the new world where deprivation is no longer an everpresent reality.
Richard Malthus made this one of central points, that the workers (i.e. non-capitalists) would always expand beyond the available resources and as such would always have a significant percentage starving. This would keep labour prices down, as the alternative to working at whatever price was offered was starvation. In Malthus's theory, any attempt to alleviate the workers' suffering would result in widespread economic disturbance.
The central theorists of the Capitalistic tradition all had this lack of concern for the workers built into their systems to one degree or another. During the Depression, their thinking (that putting systems into place to keep people from starving was bad for the economy of a whole) was one of the main objections to FDR's New Deal policies.
Much of Socialist thought came out of a revolt against this theoretical necessity of starvation and of the advised exploitation of workers. Socialist critics brought up major problems with the turning the largest class of people into mere commodities to be exploited by those with capital at the lowest possible price. Instead, they suggested types of systems where one's own personal profits where not the primary concern. They believed that by having a communal orientation that spread resources around with a freer hand, people could largely eliminate deprivation.
This attitude was less of a radical new thought as it was a return to pre-capitalistic thinking. In pre-capitalistic Europe, the main economic system was a sort of caste-baed one where people worked for a living but did not make this work the center of their lives. Undue concern with profit was even considered immoral. For example, this is the reason why economic speculation and moneylending was left to the Jews and also regarded as proof of a Jewish evil nature. It was only with the advent of Capitalistic thought (ok, I'm simplifying here, but it's true from a broad point of view) that greed became an acceptable motivation in mainstreem society.
There's been a lot of interest lately in the Japanese revolution in manufacturing that has become known as "Lean Production". In the book, The Machine That Changed The World, a team of MIT researches tell the story of the rise of lean production in the auto industry and its implications for the wider economic scene. The authors present data supported claims that the lean production system allows the production of "cars with one-third the defects, built in half the factory space, using half the man-hours." The authors confront the fact that Japanese auto manufacturing was, at the time, far superior to American and European manufacturing, and explain that this is largely due to the style of production, to the Japanese adoption of lean production. One of the central features of this new way of doing things is a readoption of a collectivist, cooperative approach to conducting economic activity. For example, one of the central points of this system is an acknowledgement that everyone needs and deserves to make a living, thus extreme wage disparity between workers and management and trying to screw people over to make more money for yourself have mostly vanished. To put it another way, the Japanese (and some American test plants that fully adopted this system) were able to produce more and better products for less money than their American counterparts specifically because they rejected a solely market capitalistic orientation. Besides the moral issues, strict market capitalism has now been shown to be less efficient than other, more collectively based ones.
This is especially important now, when, because of market pressures, America has been hemorraging manufacturing jobs to places with lower standards of living and thus more subject to the Malthusian starvation pressure on workers' wages. A better system is available, but it requires rejecting a view of the world and of human nature that has become central to the American character. Also, acknowledging that such alternatives exist goes against the interests of those people in our society who greatly benefit from the current one.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm a collectivist, as a person. I'm totally willing to work for way less than I know I'm worth in exchange for the assurance that nothing will ever change. But according to the test that showed this, I was the only one on Hatrack who is into this. And oddly, I'm known for being really right wing. I guess there are some things I know are right, and other things that deep down I would prefer.
[ April 06, 2004, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
I wonder about that MIT study on auto factories. Did they also study the bubble-to-burst mentality of the businesses of Japan? The close to zero insurance on businesses in Japan? The fact that ten years later, Japanese cars are notably less reliable and less dependable than equally-priced American cars? In essence, what people have already said here in the thread would still be applicable: it's fine in theory and in the short term, but it doesn't permit a self-sustaining and self-renewing system.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Any theory or social movement predicated on the assumption of individual rationality is doomed to failure.
Then again, rationality is kind of context-dependent, n'est pas?
Suffice it to say that people will generally behave within the rules or outside the rules regardless of what those rules are or how well constructed or intended they might be. Capitalism appeals to greed, 4 sure, but it also recognizes individuality. Without individuality, there is no adaptability for the social organism. (skimming over all the conflicts inherent)
fallow
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Argent, Yes, they did. Also, considering that the same systems have been transported (in many parts) to America and have again proven significantly better than standard mass production techniques, such questions are largely irrelevant. This is a new style of doing things that is not tied to Japan or it's culture, except for a willingness to adopt collectivist ways of doing things.
edit: I should also add that since the original book's publication in 1991, there have been many other studies of lean production carried out by thse eople and by others across a whole range of industries in various countries. I haven't read anywhere near all of these other books, but the ones I have have again shown that lean production is a more efficient system.
[ April 06, 2004, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
On the psychological level, the family, the putative central unit in American society, is organized around socialist principles (well, if it's healthy it is). Robert Putnam, in his book Bowling Alone, traces the decline of what has be come to be called "social capital" in the increasingly isolated individualism that we practice in America. He makes a very good case for regarding this as a major cause for many of the problems that America is facing.
Our rejection of anything collectivist is hurting us as a culture, both economically and psychologically. I'm not just talking about theory here. It's there in black and white. What we can do about it not theoretical either.
[ April 06, 2004, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
I think I agree with fallow, rules have a way of polarizing people unnaturally. Free enterprise is flawed, but it at least offers order with breathing room to be creative. Anyway I think principles are more powerful than law when it comes to the way a society really runs, I don't think we have the principles as a society to obey the law of communal living.
It's a really interesting question right now, though, especially given the working and living conditions of people being exploited in the name of free enterprise. No easy answers is right, Tree Posted by Tzadik (Member # 5825) on :
Oh my, I could be telling for hours, what hours, days about communism and how evil it is! Trust me, I know what I am talking about, I grew up in communist country (Czechoslovakia). I was 14 when communist regime fell, and I couldn’t be happier! I remember what was it like before and what it is like now, and I hope that NEVER again in my life will I have to live under a communist tyranny!
Yes, the idea of communism sounds good, but never works in real life. They tried to implement it in my country for over 40 years, and it didn't work, it couldn't work, it wouldn't work!
Not sure those of you who were born in free country can fully comprehend the horrors of being born in country where communist ruled for decades. Only please do trust me, don't even crave the experience living under communist regime! Not worth it.
Just one example of many - when my mother was 5 and her sister was 2, right after our brothers, Soviet army liberated their home town, her father was, for no reason, taken prisoner and shipped to Siberia. He has spent 5 years in soviet concentration camp, he's never been convicted of any crime, he was 'just' taken by our brothers. And you have stories like that, tragedy over tragedy, people being imprisoned, humiliated, executed... Sad times.
Every time someone asks me about communist ideology I say - it's the same, if not worse than Nazi ideology! It's evil, pure evil!
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
That seems a tad strong, T.
It seemed like a nice idea? Lotsa ideas do.
fallow
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
The only system that would work would be a hybrid of the two. Democratic socialism. Captialism in the past has had a negative effect on poorer citizens as well as the environment. Maybe a system that hasn't even been thought of would be the most effective.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Not sure those of you who were born in free country can fully comprehend the horrors of being born in country where communist ruled for decades. Only please do trust me, don't even crave the experience living under communist regime! Not worth it.
I agree with this SO passionately. I've never lived under a communist regime but I am so afraid that the people living in our country will slowly move that direction, while convincing themselves that WE could do communism right, or that communism isn't THAT bad.
Everyone needs to listen to the people around you who have actually experienced it. How often do you hear those people saying that we should give it another try?
I feel the same way about socialism. It supposedly wasn't AS bad, but many of the same principles still apply.
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
Tzadik, you're mixing up communism with stalinism. Since stalinistic dictatorships have always called themselves "communistic", this is a common mixup. To me, the two are completely different. Communism has never existed, except in small communities.
While I agree that communism is pretty much impossible at the current stage of human evolution, I wouldn't want to miss some of the socialistic aspects of my childhood in East Germany. Never feeling enslaved by the fear of getting sick (free, or nominally free healthcare), MUCH lower crime, a strong support for raising children, including single motherhood. My parents would never have been able to provide for University education of three children if they'd have to pay for it. And so on.
I also have difficulty understanding the collectivism-individualism argument. True, "individualism" was considered almost evil in those stalinistic experiments. On a more general level, total suppression of the individual doesn't seem to go well with the idea of communism. As far as I understand it, there is just a strong emphasis on collective responsibility. You should consider how your actions affect the people around you, as well as the "greater good". Care for your neighbor and stuff. Very similar to some basic Christian ideas, I think. IIRC, Marx himself imagined that people living in communism would have plenty of opportunity (more spare time due to the absence of exploitation) to be creative and develop their personal interests.
By the way, just yesterday I heard on NPR that on the list of how long people live, the US is only 28th. I found that a bit surprising. Depending on how you define a "good" life, it seems that the free-market economy may not be what you want if you appreciate a long life.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As there's never really been a communist country, its rather hard to ascribe the atrocities to anything inherent in communism.
There are, however, plenty of largely and partly socialist countries, many of which get by pretty well. Take a look at Canada, which has a fair amount of socialist policy. Or much of Europe. There's nothing horrifying about what's happening in most of these places, whether you think its the best possible solution or not.
Making Ghouls of ideas is not a way towards a reasoned position.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
The most interesting thing I read on communism was the communist manifesto. I was really intrigued by the stages of failure for democracy and capitalism. The idea that either democracy or capitalism must fail because as wealth becomes more concentrated, people will have the power in a democracy to take away wealth.
Of course, even the poor in capitalist countries tend to be a lot wealthier then communist countries, and capitalism is showing to be far superior to any alternative. I still wonder what the long term future of America is. Well, if we look at the socializing of medicine, I don't think we need to too great an imagination.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Certain aspects of capitalism are definitely far superior to the alternatives. There are areas in which capitalism falls short as well.
There's no such thing as an absolute economy. Even the most radical economies proposed by most libertarians have small non-capitalist elements, a publically funded military being a common one. And even in a national economy that's one way or the other, groups of people will set up their own economic practices which are more or less one way or the other -- what do you think a baby sitting pool is but a socialist organization?
And even the most radical communist states have had capitalism all over the place, usually in the form of bribes.
Economies are not villains.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Of course, this type of socialism is voluntary. I have nothing against socialism -- it's state mandated socialism that I object strongly to. There is a world of difference between me chosing to join a baby-sitting pool and being forced to join one for the good of all.
Posted by Tzadik (Member # 5825) on :
quote: Tzadik, you're mixing up communism with stalinism. Since stalinistic dictatorships have always called themselves "communistic", this is a common mixup. To me, the two are completely different. Communism has never existed, except in small communities.
Sal, no, am not mixing stalinism and comunism. Stalinism ended basically couple years after Stalin's death. It was the worst kind of perverted comunist ideology. However, USSR and the communist countries of Eastern and Central Europe remained to live in communist regimes. OK, agree, we never reached the 'pure'communism, thank goodness for that! Or call it a socialist regime which was building communism. Don't want to mix terms, but after all - it's all the same! No matter what you call it, it's perverted and evil!
I am shocked, every time I hear people talk about socialism/communism and that it should be tried to be implemented, becuase we've learnt from the past and won't do the same mistakes, I want to scream NOOOO! It'll never work and I hope that not another country and its people will have to go through what Central and Eastern Europe suffered from late 1940's till 1989.
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
Oh, I agree with you Tzadik in that I don't think it is "implementable". The whole idea of communism presumes that people are inherently good. So it can't work. Even the small communities don't often survive for too long (with exceptions).
I find it interesting though that the majority (I think) of hardcore science fiction--that is, those writers who try to imagine a realistic future for Earth--tends to come up with some form of society that integrates many aspects of communism.
Either that--or total destruction of humankind. Which is what we're heading for, I think.
Edit: name spelling
[ April 06, 2004, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Sal ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tazdik -- there are plenty of countries with state enforced socialist elements. Canada, the US, France, England, Germany, Poland, and Spain come to mind as just a few.
Needless to say, having state enforced socialistic elements is not a sure recipe for ruin, tyranny, et cetera.
Trying to have a pure socialist economy is certain idiocy, yes, but its not the fault of socialism. Trying to have a pure capitalist economy is also certain idiocy.
Socialism is not inherently perverted and evil. Communism isn't either, I don't think, though that's much more arguable.
And note, I'm a staunch capitalist, in the sense that I believe in by far most things capitalism is the best alternative.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Trying to have a pure capitalist economy is also certain idiocy.
Why? What goals do you wish to achieve in such an economy? Living standards? Freedom?
quote: Socialism is not inherently perverted and evil. Communism isn't either, I don't think, though that's much more arguable.
I disagree, I believe both to be perverted and morally wrong, just as I find slavery perverted and wrong. Socialism is the FORCED collectivization of some resources. It creates a situation where participants have no choice but to work for the well-being of another, without being compensated. I define this as slavery.
There are many economic arguments against communism/socialism. The most important being that under collectivist economics, the means of production are owned by the people, and managed by the state. Since there is one effective owner of all goods, there are no real exchanges, and therefor, no real prices. In a capitalist economy, resources are distributed according to who best serves their neighbors. If a company provides a service which people find useful, people exchange with this company, allowing them to expand their services. Companies which do not provide a useful service, quickly go out of business.
Companies in a capitalist system are able to engage in cost accounting, which allows them to maximize their efficiency, producing the greatest profits. Such cost accounting is not possible when all the means of production are owned by one entity. Thus, gross inefficiencies are inevitable under collectivism. There will always be shortages of desired goods and over abundance of unwanted goods. Many once used the Soviet Union as a "proof" against this viewpoint. Of course they accepted the information minister's word that the people were happy and there were no shortages. There is, however, another reason why the Soviets were able to cling to power for so long, just barely keeping their economy afloat. They were able to study the prices in non-communist countries, and make some rudimentary cost accounting. Had they been able to collectivize the entire world, this vital option would then be lost to them.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
See, I like my socialist benefits. I don't begrudge my taxes, I like what I get from them. Even though I may never need the safety net I'm comforted by the fact that it's there and don't begrudge the people who currently need it. I'd rather have my taxes raised to pay for a safety net I may never use than lose that net completely.
I know I've told you all this before, but I guess I just like the sound of my own voice Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Please consult this article,"10 objections to a Market Economy". You will find most of the criticisms of capitalism intelligently debunked.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
But I *do* begrudge my taxes. What gives you the right to steal my property just because you think the trade is fair?
edit: This is not mean as an attack on you personally. I am using the general "you".
[ April 06, 2004, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: But I *do* begrudge my taxes. What gives you the right to steal my property just because you think the trade is fair?
You beat me to it. I second the criticism.
Thus we see how socialism is based on coercion, not on individual choice. It is necessary that the decisions on use of collective property are made either by the majority or by an authoritarian governvernt. Either way, the individual may often be forced to act against his own wishes. Thus the argument that Stalinsim didn't work, but socialist democracy does, is immaterial. Both result in the slavery of the individual.
Consider the concept of the "greater good." I say that there can be no such thing. Unless all are in unanimous agreement, some will be forced to act against their will. So such a state cannot be better for all involved. So when does it become moral for the majority to oppress the minority? I would say never.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Thus we see how socialism is based on coercion, not on individual choice."
And yet you have failed to demonstrate how all coercion is evil.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
I have failed to demonstrate the evil of slavery? Was that something I needed to do?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You've failed to convince me that this "slavery" is worse than depending on the beneficence of the common man and "The Corporation".
I know you're going to say that corporations are powered by the people, and if the people don't like something they can demand a change. But people won't change until things get to an abysmal low and this model forces people to live under the worst conditions they can stand. I think a healthy dose of socialism allows for a better standing.
I also heartily reject the thought that people will start donating enough money to create a safety net if they suddenly weren't being taxed. I don't believe people are inherently that good and I don't believe the only reason they aren't doing so right now is because they're being over taxed. Does spending on charity increase when taxes are cut? (Actually, that last point is an honest question. Look at the recent tax cuts in the States, by what percentage has spending on charities increased as compared to other years where the taxes haven't been changed or have increased?)
Then there's the fact that you have to run with a completely reactive system in terms of safety regulations if there is nobody watching the corporations. You have to wait for a mess to be made before you can fix it; you can't point out that there are rat droppings in the heart medication before it hits the shelves.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
But BtL, if one corp is offering something (say medicare) and it’s a shoddy service, another one will spring up and provide a better service. Once people flock to that one the other one will have no choice but to compete or die out.
Hmm... I don’t know about this point, let me check my data. But I think you’re wrong, people will give more money once it isn’t being stolen from them.
If a corporation releases something and it’s bad for people/the environment people won’t buy their products any more and they’ll be ruined. It’s in their best interest to provide safe services so they will!
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Sorry, I'm going to be in the lab for the rest of the afternoon so I won't be around to reply. So I figured I'd offer a preemptive reply to myself so the only person I'm ignoring is myself.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: You've failed to convince me that this "slavery" is worse than depending on the beneficence of the common man and "The Corporation".
You completely misunderstood what I have said. Capitalism requires the complete freedom from others, not dependence upon them. If one wishes to enter into a commercial relationship with others for one's own benefit, that right is protected. However, no one is forced to rely on anyone but themselves. Communism/socialism on the other hand, is the complete reliance on all others, without the option of self suffiency.
quote: I think a healthy dose of socialism allows for a better standing.
There can be no such thing as a "healthy dose" of socialism. All socialism can do is to destroy wealth, which can be equated to standard of living.
quote: Then there's the fact that you have to run with a completely reactive system in terms of safety regulations
Safety regulations are inherently UN-SAFE and destructive.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:However, no one is forced to rely on anyone but themselves.
All institutions are coercive and seek to enforce their ideologies. And those institutions who reach a certain size seek to create dependencies and curtail freedom whether they be socialist, communist, academic, religious, capitalist or coporate insitutions.
Wealth does not equal standard of living. And when wealth becomes excessive enough that the focus moves from the acquisition of wealth to the preservation of wealth, individuals and institutions engage in anti-market behaviors.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Wealth does not equal standard of living.
I argue that that is the very definition of wealth.
quote: when wealth becomes excessive enough that the focus moves from the acquisition of wealth to the preservation of wealth, individuals and institutions engage in anti-market behaviors.
Violations of private property are always wrong, no matter who is in charge, even if no one is in charge.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Robes, pure capitalism is complete idiocy if nothing else for the simple reason that a more structured society would raise a military and conquer the society that employed it.
And I find the strength of morals of those of you who truly believe all involuntary taxes are oppression to be oddly low for your protestations of the depth of the injustice. Why do you still submit to it? You would likely endure jail, eventually, but even that would hardly be a foregone conclusion (quite possibly it would merely be enforced through garnered wages, or similar).
Many slaves submitted to slavery, true, but many tried to escape. And they were subject to far harsher punishments. If you believe this is slavery, fight it.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Ahhh yes... Communism. Total equality and harmony. Shame it cannot function on a large scale. Only in monasteries and communes. Communism denies half of Human nature, ie. the greedy individual half.
That's why the Borg are so cool! They are Ultra Pure Communism. Total peace and harmony, each member is a brain cell in the Collective Mind. The Borg always get bad press. [edit for grammer.. tee hee]
[ April 06, 2004, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
*sigh*
This thread got so much less interesting now.
Robespierre, you make so many absolute statements that are contradictory to facts and generally accepted definitions that I'm not even going to start arguing with you. Try to open up, try to listen to what people have to say who actually experienced things opposite to your view, broaden the extent of sources that you take in, and take less of your current sources for granted-to-be-telling-the-truth. Please?
As for your "wealth == the very definition of standard of living", you may want to check out the UN's "Human Development Index". See what countries are at the top there? Next, order that list by life expectancy. Surely a long life is a useful indicator for a good standard of living, no?
*bows politely out of thread*
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
People like to argue that "communism only works in theory", or "communism can't work on a large scale", or "communism will only work when people stop being selfish," as if these premises had been proven. I think it's important to point out that these aren't proof of the impossibility of communism any more so than "atheism causes people to be immoral" is a proof of why atheism is bad.
The truth is, I suspect communism would work in some practical forms, and would fail in some idealistic forms. You might even call our current U.S. economy consistent with Marx's ideas in some ways. We certainly do have a good deal of welfare, in contrast to states in Marx's time.
I think a better question is, if communism did work, should we want it? I'm not so sure about that one.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Robes, pure capitalism is complete idiocy if nothing else for the simple reason that a more structured society would raise a military and conquer the society that employed it.
So your saying a purely capitalist nation would not be able to defend itself?
quote: If you believe this is slavery, fight it.
But please don't name it as it is? Actions which are compelled by a threat of force are NOT voluntary.
quote: Robespierre, you make so many absolute statements that are contradictory to facts and generally accepted definitions that I'm not even going to start arguing with you.
Thanks for not arguing with my ABSOLUTE statments, I wouldn't want to force you to actually explain what it is you are thinking. I recognize that you have many more and higher quality life expiriences and are much better read than I, and hereby apologize for being so rude as to discuss this issue.
quote: Next, order that list by life expectancy. Surely a long life is a useful indicator for a good standard of living, no?
It could be considered as PART of standard of living. However, length of life does not always imply quality of life. And if you rank those nations by economic freedom, you will find a general rule that the more freedom granted, the higher the life expectancy. The reverse is true as well.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: The truth is, I suspect communism would work in some practical forms
We need to settle on some definition of what "work" means. Are we talking about maximizing quality of life? Are we talking about overall equality in resources? How about pure survival? What do you mean by work?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not even sure how to parse your reply, Robes. It has almost nothing to do with what I was saying, as far as I can tell. Let me put it very simply:
Put your money where your mouth is.
Posted by lauraah (Member # 1930) on :
I think that this thread has become less interesting, but only because no one will respond to Robespierre's arguments. I think that his description of communism as slavery seems very logical and I can't think of a way to refute it. If you want to make the thread more lively, come up with an argument as to why forcing somebody to labor for someone other than themselves is not slavery.
[ April 06, 2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: lauraah ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Put your money where your mouth is.
Translated as: "Don't discuss the issue with us on hatrack, I don't have anything to say to you."
Perhaps you should explain what, specifically, socialism does to benefit a society, and why it should be mixed in with capitalism.
My contention is that any degree of socialism is destructive to personal liberty, which is the basis for any healthy society. Coercion leads to some ruling the lives of others. Socialism, by definition, must include coercion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
laura, your profile email doesn't exist.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not at all, Robes, I just consider it useless to argue with you on these things, because your conclusions are also your premises. It does not matter what I would argue, because you suppose these things as first principles further arguing is fruitless. I cannot persuade one who does not understand persuasion.
What it means is, if you consider involuntary taxes such a great injustice, that you pay them with no real protest merely convinces me how weak either your morals or your objections really are.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
So you have nothing to suggest as the benefits of socialism then?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Robes, you haven't shown the benefits of capitalism here - you've merely asserted them. Asking fugu to do more than you have done seems unfair to me.
Dagonee (And I'm generally pro-capitalist.)
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: There can be no such thing as a "healthy dose" of socialism. All socialism can do is to destroy wealth, which can be equated to standard of living.
When I read this the first thing that popped into my head was: "The only good socialism is a dead socialism!"
Hasn't history taught us that extremism leads into problem followed by problem? Complete Capitalism, based entirely on reliance on commericial endeavors, has as many problems as Communism.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: you've merely asserted them
What more than this do you want?
quote: under collectivist economics, the means of production are owned by the people, and managed by the state. Since there is one effective owner of all goods, there are no real exchanges, and therefor, no real prices. In a capitalist economy, resources are distributed according to who best serves their neighbors. If a company provides a service which people find useful, people exchange with this company, allowing them to expand their services. Companies which do not provide a useful service, quickly go out of business.
Companies in a capitalist system are able to engage in cost accounting, which allows them to maximize their efficiency, producing the greatest profits. Such cost accounting is not possible when all the means of production are owned by one entity. Thus, gross inefficiencies are inevitable under collectivism. There will always be shortages of desired goods and over abundance of unwanted goods. Many once used the Soviet Union as a "proof" against this viewpoint. Of course they accepted the information minister's word that the people were happy and there were no shortages. There is, however, another reason why the Soviets were able to cling to power for so long, just barely keeping their economy afloat. They were able to study the prices in non-communist countries, and make some rudimentary cost accounting. Had they been able to collectivize the entire world, this vital option would then be lost to them.
Even if I had not discussed the supports for my reasoning behind supporting capitalism, Fugu has yet to mention ANY reason why socialism should be pursued at any level in any amount. His only argument thus far is that total capitalism is "idiocy". This is far from any kind of support for socialism, in moderation or otherwise.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Complete Capitalism, based entirely on reliance on commericial endeavors, has as many problems as Communism.
It is possible to live in a Laisse-Faire system without having ANY commercial endeavors. One is free to be totally cut off from society if one so chooses.
For the sake of discussion, would you name one or two of the problems of complete capitalism?
[ April 06, 2004, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Robes, those benefits exist in many democracies that have socialistic tendencies, including the United States. None of that paragraph says anything against the problems of taxation for programs you insist are anathema to "capitalism."
For example, my company had to pay taxes that supported regulatory regimes and welfare programs. Yet we managed to do cost accounting just fine.
Dagonee
Posted by A Boy Named Tree (Member # 6382) on :
Where does Facism come into place? Is it a branch of Socialism? Or Communism? Or both?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Yet we managed to do cost accounting just fine.
Yes you did, and you were also forced to work as a government slave, as are all who work and report their incomes.
quote: Where does Facism come into place? Is it a branch of Socialism? Or Communism? Or both?
Facism can also be called state-capitalism, where the state controls all or most major industries, setting output, prices, and wages. The Germans called their system national socialism. The effect of facism is similar to that of socialism in that it removes freedoms from the individual and private sector, but it does not totally eliminate private property. Although some argue that it does, by removing many of the freedoms which such property generally affords.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: For the sake of discussion, would you name one or two of the problems of complete capitalism?
Let me first get Capitalism straight, please tell which are correct and which are not, and please answer my questions according to your vision:
I don't pay taxes... everything is owned by private companies or people, including roads (?) and other such things... national parks and such are owned by who? Rich companies? Millionaires?... If a company tries to buy something of mine, can I merely refuse?... where does money, say for an army, come from?... Do political parties owe their allegiance to political, economic or personal goals (for instance, could a politician be affiliated with a specific company)?
EDIT: Or have a got the wrong idea completely?
[ April 06, 2004, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes you did, and you were also forced to work as a government slave, as are all who work and report their incomes.
Robes, this is the part of your argument you've provided NO support for - it's your assertion that taxation equals slavery. And you totally ignored the point that the backup you provided does not only support your "pure capitalism" but also capitalism as practiced in the United States and Western Europe.
Meanwhile, fugu's very legitimate question as to why you pay taxes if that is your view remains unanswered.
Dagonee
Posted by A Boy Named Tree (Member # 6382) on :
In EG wouldn't the title of Hegoman (is that spelled right) would that fall over dictatorship?
[ April 06, 2004, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: A Boy Named Tree ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
A Hegemon is a small animal found in Japanese nature preserves that with proper training can execute the "spike attack". They have been known to evolve into porcumon.
Posted by A Boy Named Tree (Member # 6382) on :
Ohh...
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Meanwhile, fugu's very legitimate question as to why you pay taxes if that is your view remains unanswered.
What difference does it make whether or not I pay taxes to this discussion? The question is totally beside the point of the morality of using force to coerce citizens into supporting other citizens.
quote: don't pay taxes... everything is owned by private companies or people, including roads (?) and other such things... national parks and such are owned by who?
No income taxes. If you use government services, you pay for them as you go. Yes, everything should be owned by people. The question of who is to be decided the same as who should own any piece of land. Who used it first, or who payed for it last.
quote: If a company tries to buy something of mine, can I merely refuse?
Of course, I am not speaking about corporate fuedalism. Private property rights apply to all equally.
quote: where does money, say for an army, come from?
From those who wish to purchase an army?
quote: Do political parties owe their allegiance to political, economic or personal goals (for instance, could a politician be affiliated with a specific company)?
I don't fully understand this question, but the near monopoly source of corruption in our government stems from companies and individuals regulation or subsidizing the economy in their own interest, at the expense of taxpayers. With such economic tampering outlawed, many ethics issues would be much less important.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And still you ignored the main point of my post about your "proof" that capitalism requires no taxes to be successful.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: And still you ignored the main point of my post about your "proof" that capitalism requires no taxes to be successful.
I'm really not sure what you want Dags.
Capitalism is a system of economic exchange, in which each individual is free to enter into contracts as he/she see's fit. Private property rights are held as the best way to settle disputes, and the role of government is to punish those who initiate the use of force.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
I have to go for the day dags, if you have any more questions, check out:
www.mises.org Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You equate taxes with slavery, and you're trying to educate me about economic systems? You've become utterly incoherent in this thread.
Dagonee
[ April 06, 2004, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
"Economic Tampering outlawed."
Who polices the companies to see if they are tampering with the economy. While you fear governmental slavedom, I fear companies conspiring to set prices, bully competitors, and commit massive fraud on the customers. Who polices the corporations, and where does the money come from to do this policing, the judging, and the incarceration of these economic tamper-ers.
The closest example to complete Non-Governmental Hands Off economy I've seen in a while has been the "Food Supplement" industry.
Since legislation freeing it from almost all governmental oversight the Food Supplement industry has been exceedingly profitable. Millions upon millions have been made by the companies.
And the quality of the products produced have deteriorated to down right piosonous.
Drug Manufacturers have to prove their products are effective.
These companies do not.
Food Manufacturers have to prove their products are safe.
These companies do not.
If their product kills you, it is up to you to prove that it was their product that did it.
Which is why Aphedra remained on the market despite the string of deaths and heart disease it left in its wake.
You say that when company A produces better than company B, clients will go to company A. BUt what if Company B produces the better commercial, makes the wilder promise, has the prettier box.
Capitalism works great in the long run.
However, in the short run, millions can be made producing over hyped, highly toutted, shoddy and dangerous merchandise. If you have to hurt a few people to make your company successful, well thats the cost of doing business.
Posted by A Boy Named Tree (Member # 6382) on :
This whole argument is now way over my head... So I'll leave the rest up to you, and just see how this all plays out...
-tree
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Thank you for answering my questions Robes... I'm sorry I have some more specific examples on a case-by-case interpretation as Capitalism as I interpret it...
quote: From those who wish to purchase an army?
So if I want to protect my country, say from more socialist countries who are trying to eradicate my capitalism, I can buy up a gun or a tank, or part of a tank, and put my tank into the war effort. If that is the case, what happens if I decide that my tank isn't going to go into a particular battle?
***
If MacDonalds owns a couple of battleships and pulls the USS Happy Meal, McNugget and McFlurry out of a convoy meant to protect the Intel Submarine Sealicon Chip, is MacDonalds held responisble for the defeat and capture of said Submarine?
quote: If you use government services, you pay for them as you go.
I am a twelve year old daughter of a single mother who works as a caretaker, and she has no health insurance. I get appendicitis/something worse, and the cost of the operation is more than we can afford. Who pays for my operation?
***
I live at number 64 on a road. Do I pay a small fee every time I use the road? Do I tip the snowplough driver as he passes my house or does he leave a tiny bill in my mailbox, which I then have to pay him.
If the snowplough driver charges exorberant amounts and also owns the rights to clear the road and the road itself, what do I do?
***
I'm still confused about National Parks. Are there government rules stopping Mr. Smith from developing Yellowstone Park? Why shouldn't he build houses there? After all, he owns it!
EDIT: By the way, A Boy Named Tree, welcome.
[ April 06, 2004, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by A Boy Named Tree (Member # 6382) on :
Thanks teshi.
-tree
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
quote:Argent, Yes, they did. Also, considering that the same systems have been transported (in many parts) to America and have again proven significantly better than standard mass production techniques, such questions are largely irrelevant. This is a new style of doing things that is not tied to Japan or it's culture, except for a willingness to adopt collectivist ways of doing things.
Except that GM didn't switch to a Japanese way of doing things, nor the techniques that Japan employed. In fact, GM managed to improve on its own practices, and car production in the US today is more like it used to be in the first or second quarter of the century, up to and including the resiliency of its automobiles. One could conceivably argue that the Japanese learned from examples like Ford in his early years. Regardless, giving the workers a stake in the success of the business isn't a Communist or Capitalist only paradigm.
Posted by spartacus (Member # 7469) on :
The only reason I joined this forum was to read and post in this thread. I find it extremely hard to resist such winsome topic. I'd also would like to applaud you all (especially the Anarcho-Capitalists such as Robespierre) for not resulting to vilification of those opposing their views and beliefs. Kudos.
This past summer, I was a staunch Anarcho-Communist, however blindly. I supported the ideology to the fullest degree, and took immense pride. It made sense to me. I grew up with the ideals of the 60's, and here was an ideology which professed of pure equality, and money not being the head of everything. Then I began visiting a forum, where I met an Anarcho-Capitalist who made me question a lot of what I believed. I came to the realization that what I believed was based immeasurably on fideism, something which conflicted with the rational side of my mentality. I became incredibly confused, and decided it was time I took further consideration into what it was I was advocating.
I believe the biggest problem with Communists/Socialists/Marxists is that they have a hard time defending what they believe, and I believe with good reason; in the nations where 'Communism' has been implemented it has been perverted and raped into something which is bloody and diversiformed from the original idea. Also, the Capitalists have been very productive in creating literary works to support their ideas. Smith, Locke, Mises, Bastiat, Rand, Hayek, etc, were individuals who wrote and preached of Capitalism, how it could work, how it made sense, and why collectivism is an evil. How many Communist/Socialists have taken the liberty to make the same effort? (The irony makes me chuckle)
Communism can never work. It is primarily based on the belief that individuals want to give to their fellow man; altruism. It takes away personal freedoms, and the freedom to succeed, something which is essential. Capitalism can never work. It is based on the belief that human nature is inherently evil and the goal in life is to create profit.
(I know this is sounding redundant in relation to many other posts, but bear with me)
Capitalists give a very good strong argument, especially the one that Robespierre here is giving about 'Slavery', in a metaphorical sense. Most of us who advocate Communists/Socialists/Marxists fail to see exactly what such a society would entail. What good is a life where you are born with a predestined future? Where you have nothing to aspire to? Sure, every individual will have food, water, a home, and a static income but..that's exactly what life and society would become, static. Dictatorship of the proletariat is one of the most, if not the most, ironic aspects of Communism. Was not the point of Communism to escape from an overruling class? Yes, it's a dictatorship run by "the workers" but even then there is the elitism, which seems to be inevitable. People will argue that Communism has worked in Cuba! Hah, for it to work it must first exist. Cuba is Neo-Communistic with a teaspoon of Capitalism.
Capitalism depends on people being basically selfish. The whole point is that, if you work hard, you can get rich, ride to the top, and do whatever (more or less) you want; also on the survival of the fittest ideal. It has existed as well, not it's pure form but in abundance. It's done some good, but also a lot of evil. Capitalism has created exploitation, and a class society. The current state of our world is the prime example of this. What's wrong with helping your fellow man? What's wrong with giving some of your profits to your government in order to stabilize and keep order in your country?
If you are a staunch Paleo-Libertarian Hoppean propritarian Anarcho-capitalist..why do you succumb to the obligations of the State? Why do you travel on the roads and highways paid for by money being stolen FROM YOU? Why? Fight the State! Defeat it! Do not succumb to what it asks from you. Life, Liberty, and property..put it into effect.
I am currently still in teh process of determing my own stance, however I can somewhat say that I can be considered a Socio-Capitalist. More so left leaning, however.
Edit: For spelling mistakes.
[ March 06, 2005, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: spartacus ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Pure capitalism is a tad rough on the consumer - if any of you remember the book "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair.
<edit> The much-touted "enlightened self-interest" of laissez-faire systems doesn't work. The Enron scenario is one example - the executives had little or no reservations about plundering their company to the ground and cheerfully abandoning ship with their ill-gotten gains and corporate parachutes.
<edit> Without forced moderation and regulation from a stronger organization, the consumer is at the mercy of companies that could and probably otherwise wood, in turn, play neighborhood bully for their own benefit. The government can at least claim in some instances to be looking out for the well-being of the greater whole and not the handful of would-be bullies.
Without a strong central government, it would be difficult to raise and maintain a military capable of repelling attacks from countries that do have a standing, unified military instead of a "military by committee" that would result from individual organizations (companies, city-states, what-have-you) trying to rally together.
As for the slavery point - Robes point is well-taken, allowing for the contextual definition of slavery. Webster's provides one defintion of slavery as:
quote: 2 : submission to a dominating influence
Which in strictest definition, can be <edit> applied </edit> to every person who pays taxes not because they want to support the government and pay for social services, but rather because they don't want to go to jail.
From a more practical standpoint, I find the word to be a bit extreme in the emotional context - as I informally define slavery as the total and complete submission of one's person to a stronger authority.
That said, any time someone surrenders any liberty either to a demanding power or the collective good (social contract?) one could argue that we are slaves to either the government or society as a whole.
Edit: And as much as I didn't care for "Hero" and the political rhetoric behind it, the movie makes a good point about the application of force.
-Trevor
Edit: For a completely idiotic opening.
[ March 06, 2005, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
All laws require coercion, Robe, that is the point. Pure capitalism is not any better of a system because the people who have the most resources would have an undue advantage over the rest of us.
Did YOU read any of the replies above? If you had, perhaps you would understand why the military was mentioned. I won't bother to repeat it...if you didn't pay attention the first time I doubt you would a second.
quote:Safety regulations are inherently UN-SAFE and destructive.
All hail those who makes absolutes a religion not to be questioned.
Almost all laws are a form of safety regulation, in one way or another.
There are things that are used for the common good, things you use almost every day and don;t think about, that were built with tax money...things like hospitals and highways...that supersede "pure" capitalism. There are things that are used by all of us that would not exist without the government to develop them, and they use tax monies to do so....which could be termed a loose form of socialism.
Do you buy food in a supermarket? If you do you are reaping the benefits of the highway system, built by the federal government using common funds gathered by taxes on the public.
I don't like communism much, not as it has actually appeared in the world OR in "pure" theory; I much prefer the current state of affairs, which is really a combination of the two.
quote: Socialism is the FORCED collectivization of some resources. It creates a situation where participants have no choice but to work for the well-being of another, without being compensated. I define this as slavery
We know what YOU define it as....
The rest of us call it human society.
You aren't forced to do anything...you are free to leave and go somewhere else, or to try and "beat" the system....but when you fail, don't ask for a public defender.
That would be communistic....actually it wouldn't be, as you think you shouldn't have to pull your own weight in our society. (not reporting income)
There is a difference between stating something as fact, and actually proving it as fact.
So far all you have proved is that you believe specific things.
I fail to see any proof about anything I quoted above...and I actually READ the posts I am commenting on. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You know, Robespierre's last post on this thread is nearly a year old Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Before my long, rambling post, I was hip-deep in burning CDs.
It was a welcome relief to babble about something else for a bit.
-Trevor
Posted by spartacus (Member # 7469) on :
quote:You know, Robespierre's last post on this thread is nearly a year old
...wow.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I didn't notice that....
But I still think I had a few good points....
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Huh. Almost a year since ol' Robesie left, eh? Hadn't realized it was quite that long.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
...wow.
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)