Can Communism Work? page 20

594 posts

Flag Post

Let me end my day by sharing this story:

When my social studies teacher was in college, she once took an economy class. One day the teacher was discussing communism. Then a student questioned the teacher and explained how the communist system was ideal. The teacher had an idea and offered the class to a communistic approach to assignments for the semester. He went a little more than communism and proposed that for every assignment, the highest grade in the class was the grade for everybody.

By the middle of the semester, the entire class was failing every single test.

The very nature of humans and communism conflict.

 
Flag Post

You know who does social studies? High school students.

Thanks for the input.

 
Flag Post

No, social studies is actually carried to the degree level, in the European model. You can get an NVQ 3 in social studies for example, which is about equivalent to a Higher National Diploma (HND – 2/3rds of a degree) or have it as your primary subject in a BSc.

That said, Zzzip’s model falls apart, purely because they’re not considering the worth of every single student. Rather the lecturer is trying to average results, whilst dismissing those at the lower end of the bell curve, which will ultermately cause those students other than the very best to simply give up trying – and cause the very best to give up trying after that, as they see they are carrying everybody else.

A communist model will only work if you give everyone the same opportunites, and set the growth limitations above the capabilities of the highest performing student, such that everyone has space to grow into. There must be limits set, else you have unrestrained growth like in the capitalist model, whereby one person’s growth leads to another’s oppression. However at the same time these limits cannot stymie personal growth.

The fundamental nature of the human mind and the concept of communism do not conflict to an unworkable degree. However there must be controls in place to limit the greed inherent in the human psyche, and the tendency to express dominance over others. That in a large part is why communistic societies have tended to wander off their charted course – because the leadership has always been human and thus subject to human foibles.

If you do it, you must plan for corruption. Expect it, pretty much at every level, and put in place safeguards against it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

Crimes will always be committed regardless of ideology.

That is why there are prisons in capitalist countries for CRIMINALS (aka people who commit crimes) to be held in.

In communist countries, there are prisons (aka political prison camps) at the command of criminals who send thousands of innocent people (aka people who have not committed crimes… well, a crime is whatever Our Great Leader feels should be at the moment in communist countries) to their deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

But then America like most countries is and was never truly capitalist. All known governments are hybrids concerning government vs. private ownership of capital and means of production. In most countries the government is actually the greatest single economic player.

Yes, true, politicians have taken advantage of the democratic system, specifically the US government, to do things like agree to detain American citizens because they have Japanese heritage (that’s what FDR did).

You are right that many capitalist countries aren’t exactly capitalist. Look at Canada (socialized health care, but private ownership of property and business is still present).

What you are wrong about, however, is that the US and other such countries supposedly are not and have never been true democratic capitalist nations.

Let’s look at the founding of the US. You seem to think that perhaps they founders were thinking: “Hey, the people are idiots, we can’t trust them! They need a great Big Brother that’s bigger and stronger than them to tell them what to do, and how much of what to make and sell, and what price to sell what they make at!”

Wrong. One of the main concepts of Adam Smith’s capitalist model (used as foundations along with the Magna Carta, John Locke’s work, and other alike documents) is limited government.

This means that under true democratic-republican capitalism, the government has no role in the free market other than being a policeman of sorts, meaning it’s job is to protect the property and lives of both the consumers and producers (everybody is one and/or both). If the government does anything other than this in the market than it is stepping out of it’s proper role, according to capitalist standards.

Basically, government is to be run as efficiently as a successful business (which it is not being done) but leaving the private sector alone (which is not being done, so in a sense you are sometimes correct with the idea that the US is not a true capitalist country).

The difference between ideological capitalism/real-life capitalism and ideological communism/real-life communism is that both forms of capitalism exist and have existed and are the same, and only real-life communism has ever existed and will ever exist, and ideological communism exists and has only existed in wet-pants fantasies.

No real-life communist nation in the world is or ever has been on the “Most Charitable Countries List”, “Best Living Standards List”, or any such “List of Good Stuff”
They have the lowest debt because they have the least stuff to spend stuff on (except peasant armies).

The only lists they get on are, for example, “Most People In Your Own Country Murdered By You, Great Leader! List!”

Communism’s “necessary/acceptable homeland ‘losses’ (executions, starvations due to famines, etc etc.)” amount to over 100 million people worldwide.

Communism: over 100 million non-combat losses (crime-less [well, with whatever they define as ‘crime’, maybe not] civilian/military in communist homelands/occupations) since Marxist rebirth of communism (early 1800s to recent past [2000s])

US Capitalism: 2.8 million TOTAL casualties INCLUDING WOUNDED/MISSING, DEAD, including both US and ADVERSARY combat losses in EVERY CONFLICT in US history INCLUDING CURRENT CONFLICTS (1775 to present) plus EVERY DOMESTIC EXECUTION in US (& pre-US) from 1608 2002: 15,000 executions TOTAL.

Communism has killed almost 50 times as many people as true capitalism, even while waving communist war casualties in every one of their conflicts on both side of said every conflict.

The US has more beds in homeless shelters and more than enough food for any homeless people (even while disregarding non-kitchen/shelter privately organized and private individual charity). The reason there are a lot of people on the street is because these shelters and kitchens don’t allow individuals with illegal drugs and/or alcohol inside AND do not serve either. The sad truth is that some people would rather live for drugs and alcohol than a bed, meals, and a new life.

Even those who are currently poor live better than people in communist countries, and also live better than any king and queen that has taken a throne before modern times.

Capitalism is the reason there is a company that made computers for people to use, like everyone on this forum does.

Think of any company that makes any kind of luxury you yourself use (including illegal drugs and alcohol, if anyone one of you are party addicts and/or are living on a sidewalk)
, and under communism that company and the products that it produces are GONE. Imagine that! If a communist country suddenly took over whatever country you live in, no more freakin’ Kongregate for you!

;P

 
Flag Post

@ PatriotSaint

1. Your confusing a market economy with Capitalism and a non-market economy(for example a centrally planned economy) with Communism. Thats not the case. The central definition of Capitalism is private ownership/control of the means of production(capital) and the freedom of the private owners/controllers to do with said capital as one pleases, without community interference.

2. I don´t care what you believe what the founding fathers thought, i care about what they did and the results of their actions. The Fact is that the US government from the get go has been heavily involved in the economy. It has always been much more than just the neutral Policeman you envision.

3. Likewise i don´t care what countries call themselves Communist or Capitalist, what matters is what they really are. And the US is not Capitalist and the so called “real communist countries” are not Communist. (Simply due to the fact that in most of them their Governments are/where not community controlled but Private controlled, making them in a way more Capitalistic than even the US).

4. Your comparison of the US with so called “real communist countries” is an epic fail. To many simple mistakes that ruin the comparison. 1. Cherry picking one country as a placeholder for capitalism, there are many countries that (by your use of the term capitalist, to any with high freedom of market economics and non-government intervention) are in fact much more capitalist and who are doing far far worse. 2nd. You completely fail to put your numbers in perspective, for example China alone has 3 times the number of Citizens than the US, sure putting it on a per capital scale alone will not make the so called “real Communist states” look better than the US, but you can kiss that 50 times ratio goodbye.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

@ PatriotSaint

1. Your confusing a market economy with Capitalism and a non-market economy(for example a centrally planned economy) with Communism. Thats not the case. The central definition of Capitalism is private ownership/control of the means of production(capital) and the freedom of the private owners/controllers to do with said capital as one pleases, without community interference.

2. I don´t care what you believe what the founding fathers thought, i care about what they did and the results of their actions. The Fact is that the US government from the get go has been heavily involved in the economy. It has always been much more than just the neutral Policeman you envision.

3. Likewise i don´t care what countries call themselves Communist or Capitalist, what matters is what they really are. And the US is not Capitalist and the so called “real communist countries” are not Communist. (Simply due to the fact that in most of them their Governments are/where not community controlled but Private controlled, making them in a way more Capitalistic than even the US).

4. Your comparison of the US with so called “real communist countries” is an epic fail. To many simple mistakes that ruin the comparison. 1. Cherry picking one country as a placeholder for capitalism, there are many countries that (by your use of the term capitalist, to any with high freedom of market economics and non-government intervention) are in fact much more capitalist and who are doing far far worse. 2nd. You completely fail to put your numbers in perspective, for example China alone has 3 times the number of Citizens than the US, sure putting it on a per capital scale alone will not make the so called “real Communist states” look better than the US, but you can kiss that 50 times ratio goodbye.

1. “Without ‘community’ influence”. Yes, if that is your code word for “government”. A non-market economy is not capitalism. Therefore it is either anarchism, one extreme, and communism, the other extreme.

2. I don’t care if you don’t care. No, the government was not heavily involved in the beginning; the boom came during the Progressive Era. I’d like some examples of heavy involvement in early America.

3. I know “community controlled” sounds so cuddly but under REAL-LIFE communism (not “real communism”, the perfect one that never has existed and never will) all property is government controlled.

4. Name some of those far more capitalistic countries that are doing any worse than any communist country that has ever existed. And if you haven’t noticed, China has moved towards capitalism.

About the numbers. When you are talking about people and population scale alongside genocide, it doesn’t matter what any scale of citizens.

I’m sure that the 100 million-plus dead people at the hands of the communists would disagree with you, as would any survivors of these genocides.

Capital scale DOESN’T MATTER. These people DIED.

Since the US is always the target of people like you, I used it as my main example.

I combined the US combat AND execution stats and compared these to dissident executions communist countries alone, NOT including combat records.

Say what you want about ideology, but FACTS, like said statistics that you can look up for yourself, are stubborn.

So, in terms of dead people at the hands of the government, communism still earns the “Most People Killed By You, Great Leader!” Award.

The 50 times ratio still stands. Why? Because, it so happens that, again, over 100 million people were killed by their government in communist countries, and 2.7 have been WOUNDED, KILLED, MISSING, etc. on BOTH sides of every conflict the US has engaged in. Plus every execution since 1608.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

1. “Without ‘community’ influence”. Yes, if that is your code word for “government”. A non-market economy is not capitalism. Therefore it is either anarchism, one extreme, and communism, the other extreme.

2. I don’t care if you don’t care. No, the government was not heavily involved in the beginning; the boom came during the Progressive Era. I’d like some examples of heavy involvement in early America.

3. I know “community controlled” sounds so cuddly but under REAL-LIFE communism (not “real communism”, the perfect one that never has existed and never will) all property is government controlled.

4. Name some of those far more capitalistic countries that are doing any worse than any communist country that has ever existed. And if you haven’t noticed, China has moved towards capitalism.

1. A non-market economy can certainly be capitalism. Though its unlikely to happen. Again Capitalism is the private(individual) ownership/control of the means of production(capital) and the freedom of the private owners to do with the means of production as they want.
Communism is the shared communal ownership of said means of production. Government ownership =/= Community Ownership, unless the Government is owned/controlled by the community.

2. From the get go the government was providing a large number of community services, including roads, bridges and street lighting just to name a few. Add to that military campaigns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

3. What you call real-life communism is not communism(see 1) and even in them all property is not government controlled.

4. Take your pick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
Look up the countries you believe to be communist, under it you will find a number of non-communist countries that even according to your definitions are more capitalistic than the USA. Alternatively you can just start at the bottom of the list and work your way up until you reach the first country you believe to be communist and pick any country under it.

About the numbers. When you are talking about people and population scale alongside genocide, it doesn’t matter what any scale of citizens.

I am guessing you meant to say that counting per capita does not matter, which is pure bullshit. You add up all the negative numbers of countries you believe to be communist in one big pool and then compare it the USA and seriously believe it does not matter? If you had only taken Cuba and compared it to the USA your numbers would be screwed in the opposite direction, because Cuba is a small fish compared to the USA. Likewise if you had taken all countries that can be considered Capitalist by your standards and put them in one big pool.
Don´t believe me go ask some of your science teachers, why its important.

I’m sure that the 100 million-plus dead people at the hands of the communists would disagree with you, as would any survivors of these genocides.

I am sure thats complete Bullshit. My pointing out the flaws in your comparison does them no injustice whatsoever. Why the fuck should they care how “good” the USA comes off in such a comparison?

I combined the US combat AND execution stats and compared these to dissident executions communist countries alone, NOT including combat records.

Your implying that offsets other factors, which it does not. Too wrongs(or even more) don´t make a right.

Say what you want about ideology, but FACTS, like said statistics that you can look up for yourself, are stubborn.

SO? Your implying that its important in some way. My point is not about the numbers but your method of comparison which is flawed. I care squat shit how the USA and your so called real-life communist countries compare. I see no reason why i should because its practically OT.

 
Flag Post

I’m also sure the millions who died to fuel the industrial revolution, especially all the children who continue to die today in various sweatshops around the world really care about how much better “pure capitalism” is. In reality pure capitalism doesn’t care about anything but money so it ends up destroying the environment damaging people’s health and reward child labour. Now we haven’t seen pure communism tried yet but it seems the way to get there is also flawed which leaves me with that an strong socialist with slow privatisation might be the way to go. Or failing that a hybrid such as is currently in use around the world.

 
Flag Post

I’d like to clarify something. When I say “capitalism”, I mean the Adam Smith model, which has a strict definition.

1. “Non-market capitalism is possible though it is unlikely to happen.” WRONG. It has never happened and will never happen because if it does it is not capitalism. “Non-market free market” is an oxymoron.

WRONG. Communism also includes the equal ownership (oops, sorry, Marx, “usership”) of ALL property, which has never happened in the real world.

2. So, you’re basically saying that building public works like roads, bridges, and street lamps, counts as intrusion into the free market. Somehow. That’s like saying that the government is intruding into the free market by building government buildings. Also, materials, products, and services used by the government are purchased from the market.

Ehh… I don’t see what the military has to do with government involvement in the market, except it is a dependable customer of said market.

The government buying and building stuff doesn’t have anything to do having a presence in the market. If the government didn’t wasn’t a consumer on the market than that would mean they would have to build their own factories in almost every industry, making them a socialist/communist/monarchist/fascist/other state-centered country.

You haven’t come up with actual intrusion that was in place before the Progressive Era.

3. Yeah… Thanks for making my point again.

Let’s make a comparison.

Theoretical Capitalism vs. Real-life Capitalism

Both exist in the real world, because they are the same and function the same when in practice unless tampered with. (Early USA to modern-day USA is a good example)

Theoretical Communism vs. Real-life Communism

Only one has left the realm of ideas: Real-Life Communism. Theoretical Communism has never existed, does not exist and never will exist, because when you drop it in the world it always does and always will turn into Real-life Communism once it’s feet are on the ground.

They function differently when in practice; Theoretical Communism has proved itself humanly impossible. Real-life communism takes it’s place. Always, now, and forever.

4. I didn’t ask for a link to Wikipedia. Name some stable capitalist countries that are doing worse than any stable communist countries.

Here’s what you can do. Add up all the domestic criminal (and in some cases, unfortunately, non-criminal) executions from capitalist countries and then post it here for everyone to compare to the 100 million-plus domestic political dissident executions at the hands of the communist Great Leaders.

There are a few types of people who love communism, in any form.

Some pretend that places like North Korea are paradises.

Some really think that despite that every attempt at this has failed miserably and taken millions of lives each time it failed, Theoretical Communism will someday be real when “someone gets it right”.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

I’d like to clarify something. When I say “capitalism”, I mean the Adam Smith model, which has a strict definition.

I am guessing you mean this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

In which case your not talking about capitalism. I don´t know where you get the idea that it is, but Adam smith was long dead before the concept of capitalism was laid down. Adam Smiths economic theory is quite different from the concept of capitalism as such.

I find it interesting that you have such a problem with the definitions of capitalism and communism even though the very words include the core issues of their definition. Capital and Communal.
Your definitions ignore this and are analog to calling people Christians who believe Jesus was a great philosopher and follow some of his teachings(or what they believe to be his teachings), but don´t believe Jesus is/was the messiah(Christ). And in that analogy the “alternate” definition is still a lot closer to the original than yours.

1. “Non-market capitalism is possible though it is unlikely to happen.” WRONG. It has never happened and will never happen because if it does it is not capitalism. “Non-market free market” is an oxymoron.

Only by your definitions.

WRONG. Communism also includes the equal ownership (oops, sorry, Marx, “usership”) of ALL property, which has never happened in the real world.

From wiki:

In Marxian economics and socialist politics, there is distinction between “private property” and “personal property”. The former is defined as the means of production in reference to private ownership over an economic enterprise based on socialized production and wage labor; the latter is defined as consumer goods or goods produced by an individual.

So: No not ALL property. May i perhaps suggest actually reading a bit about communist economics? You seem willfuly ignorant.

And equal ownership/user-ship while it has not happened on the state level is quite a common occurrence in many societies. For example its commonly done under whats called being married in western society.

2. So, you’re basically saying that building public works like roads, bridges, and street lamps, counts as intrusion into the free market. Somehow. That’s like saying that the government is intruding into the free market by building government buildings. Also, materials, products, and services used by the government are purchased from the market.

Sigh no its not the same. The existence or non-existence of roads, bridges and etc. heavily effect the decisions of the Players in the free market. Where is one likely to return a better profit if all other things are equal? A. In a place with bad and dangerous roads, where for the lack of bridges makes long waits, detours or special equipment necessary, where crime is higher (street lights), where the population lacks education and has bad health.
Or. B in a place where the roads and bridges are good and allow for fast, cheap and reliable transportation of goods and supplies. Where crime is lower and where the general population has a decent education and health.

But even more importantly many of the things listed are part of whats called “capital”(means of production) by the definition used by not-you.

Ehh… I don’t see what the military has to do with government involvement in the market, except it is a dependable customer of said market.

Sigh. I don´t know, perhaps its historical use as means to open, protect and dominate markets. You might want to look up the so called Opium Wars as one of the most historical prominent examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_wars.


4. I didn’t ask for a link to Wikipedia. Name some stable capitalist countries that are doing worse than any stable communist countries.

Why should i bother? So that you can move the goal posts again, by using some wacky self-definition of stable? The fact that you added a new condition of “stable” instead of the offhanded high-horse “any” you used originally is telling enough. (Originally already excluding china because thats to “capitalist” to count unless your counting for the death under great leader award. Lol).


How old are you? i have the feeling i am discussing with a troll or juvenile teenager who is just repeating Arguments he has picked up somewhere else instead of thinking before writing.

 
Flag Post

Whoa. Calm down. sigh

Don’t try to lecture me on maturity. This is a forum discussion, not a faction letter war.

It sure is an interesting topic, but it doesn’t have anything to do with what we’re talking about. You could make a new topic if you wish.

1. When I said I meant the Adam Smith model, I was not using that in lieu of other principles of capitalism. Adam Smith had a model of the free market, not an entire government system. Capitalism is not capitalism if it does not have a market.

Okay, here are what these mean.

Theoretical communism: Property owned equally by the people. They also equally control the government.

Real-life communism: government owns all property but people can have “usership” of that property which is always in reality owned by the government. The government is always under control of a dictator.

Theoretical capitalism: Free market. Consumer and Producer freedom under rule of law. Private property rights. Limited government.

Real-life capitalism: Free market. Consumer and Producer freedom under rule of law. Private property rights. Limited government.

Progressive Capitalism: Heavy government regulation of the free market. Less producer freedom and therefore less consumer freedom. Private property rights may still be present. Perfect platform for going from capitalism to socialism, then perhaps communism.

“Only by your definition”
Then defend yourself and explain how a “non-market free market” is not an oxymoron, and maybe attempt to explain why it has never existed (And never will, due to it’s logical impossibility. If there is no free market therefore it is not capitalism.

It’s technically true that people can have their shelter and their food and such, despite how scarce it always is in communist countries. But under real-life communism, the government, not the people, is always in control of ALL property. It dictates who gets how much of anything (which always isn’t much).

2. Nothing different. You just listed the benefits of roads and bridges and street lamps with the knowledge that the government builds them. When the government actually does something useful it doesn’t mean they are intruding into the free market. It forces them to be a customer, which the free market is happy with.

3. I see you completely dropped this argument. Do I win this one?

4. Okay. If you want you can get the execution stats of ALL capitalist countries and post it here for everyone to compare to the 100 million-plus dissident executions in ALL communist countries. China does not count not because it is in transition from communism to capitalism.

On a side note, if we lived under communism we would not have this Kongregate forum to discuss things over.

In fact’ poor people in the US live better then any person in any communist country has ever lived (except for the Communist Party members, and the Great Leaders).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

Whoa. Calm down. sigh

Don’t try to lecture me on maturity. This is a forum discussion, not a faction letter war.

It sure is an interesting topic, but it doesn’t have anything to do with what we’re talking about. You could make a new topic if you wish.

I am not lecturing you on your maturity, but pointing out that many times you don´t put in enough effort or otherwise lack the ability to read and think thoroughly before you respond. Making many responses you give Troll level at best.
It feels very much like discussing a very complex issue that needs a certain amount of basic knowledge with a child/teenager who lacks that basic knowledge or in many cases does not just lack it but is totally misinformed.

Your List of definitions highlights this exactly. They are similar to economic and political meanings but still off(wrong). What you are using seems more a McCarty era propagandized slang. Aimed at giving an slightly alternate definition to the words Communism and Capitalism to make first one look worse and the other one look better than they really are. Mostly by trying to make common Aspects associated with them(like free market and government ownership) replace the core meaning of the words.

Then defend yourself and explain how a “non-market free market” is not an oxymoron, and maybe attempt to explain why it has never existed (And never will, due to it’s logical impossibility. If there is no free market therefore it is not capitalism.

The oxymoron only exists because you claim capitalism = free-market, which is false. Capitalism means private ownership and free-control off the means of Production. A Freemarket is not necessary. Monopoly´s and Oligopolies(Cartels) are perfectly capitalist if they a privately owned even if they leave no room for a Free-Market.
For example privately owning the sole Water source in oasis, where all water is so far away that transporting water there takes/consumes more water than what would be transported. The setup is perfectly Capitalist(private ownership of the Water source) but you would not have a Free-Market when it comes too water.

2. Nothing different. You just listed the benefits of roads and bridges and street lamps with the knowledge that the government builds them. When the government actually does something useful it doesn’t mean they are intruding into the free market.

Generally it does, because the governments actions are almost never equally useful/useless too all Players in the market. Building a road, bridge or whatever in New York has different impacts on the Players in New York than those in Seattle. Hell even the Players in York will be deferentially effected.
The dramatic effect such Government actions like building a road can have on the Free-Market is so simple that its even used as Plot for children movies. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cars_%28film%29

3. I see you completely dropped this argument. Do I win this one?

If you think trolling wins an argument. I did not feel there was any sense in responding. If you need to know why ask your English teacher.

4. Okay. If you want you can get the execution stats of ALL capitalist countries and post it here for everyone to compare to the 100 million-plus dissident executions in ALL communist countries. China does not count not because it is in transition from communism to capitalism.

But i don´t want to. You have proven that its not worth my time. See my last Post. If you don´t understand ask your English teacher.

In fact’ poor people in the US live better then any person in any communist country has ever lived (except for the Communist Party members, and the Great Leaders).

Sorry but the health care in Cuba proves you wrong. Even for non-party members health care is good. Cuba Ranks higher in general life expectancy than the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Hell there are Americans who go to Cuba to get the treatment they can´t get in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism#Cuba

 
Flag Post

Ehh, can the name-calling. Calling people “troll” and “child/teenager” isn’t very upstanding. I haven’t done it to you so don’t do it to me.

(On a side note, you really like English teachers.)

1. So your argument for the idea of non-market market economy includes monopoly.

The problem with that argument is the fact that the real-life communists are the only ones who live in the desert. A desert that they built around themselves. The government IS the monopoly.

Under capitalism new markets always pop up and old ones always expand. Can you name one monopoly that is in place?

Cartels and other such organizations do not count as they are criminal organizations. Capitalism is capitalism when under rule of law, which these organizations do not operate within.

“Non-market free market” is an oxymoron because free market economies and capitalist economies are synonyms. In fact, they are the exact same thing.

“free market and capitalism” and “government ownership and communism” happen to be true.

Every capitalist nation has had a free market and every communist country has government ownership.

2. Now you’re talking of regional effects of roads and bridges that happen to be built by the government.

Still does not explain how it violates the free market.

3. I don’t see how responding is trolling, unless trolling is defined as “anything that anyone does not like for any reason”.

Cop-out answer. Your white flag is up, I guess. Feel free to take it down if wanted.

4. Okay. I accept your white flag. If you wish to take it back, do so. You have the means. If you don’t want people to suspect data-dodging, it helps to prove that you aren’t.

Also, by living better, I mean living conditions, including average personal luxuries, not amount of government influence in people’s lives.

For a Cuban, that miracle-working magic healthcare has a habit of going into the record-burner once that Cuban is designated an undesirable, political enemy, or both, then sent to a political prison camp.

At least you can admit that Communist Party members get special benefits.

 
Flag Post

I hate to interrupt a heated argument, but oh well.


1. So your argument for the idea of non-market market economy includes monopoly.


The problem with that argument is the fact that the real-life communists are the only ones who live in the desert. A desert that they built around themselves. The government IS the monopoly.


Under capitalism new markets always pop up and old ones always expand. Can you name one monopoly that is in place?


Cartels and other such organizations do not count as they are criminal organizations. Capitalism is capitalism when under rule of law, which these organizations do not operate within.


“Non-market free market” is an oxymoron because free market economies and capitalist economies are synonyms. In fact, they are the exact same thing.


“free market and capitalism” and “government ownership and communism” happen to be true.


Every capitalist nation has had a free market and every communist country has government ownership.

Prior to the Progressive Era, what he is describing happened in the US. Companies banded together to monopolize the market, forcing people to work long hours with low wages, and sold their products at exorbitant prices. What essentially happened was that, by manipulating the business of a given product, corporations became so powerful that they could buy out failing businesses or force them out of business by offering lower prices. Then, they worked to create the desert-oasis metaphor JohnnyBeGood referred to. Private enterprise controlled the water source independent of government interference; and they thankfully never became the government.

Originally posted by PatriotSaint:


2. Now you’re talking of regional effects of roads and bridges that happen to be built by the government.

Still does not explain how it violates the free market.

But the government does provide services that “violate the free market”. For instance, a lot of countries have healthcare provided by the government. In that case, businesses no longer provide that service to people because the government makes it readily available. Same thing with roads and bridges. Because the government has control in creating policies which prohibit the everyday business owner from either providing that service themselves, or trying to work around the government’s boundaries (like those interfering with government-made policies), the government interferes with Private enterprise.

You can’t just go starting a business on slavery, right? It’s illegal, after all. And that is government intervention, which technically violates the premise of a free market.

3. I don’t see how responding is trolling, unless trolling is defined as “anything that anyone does not like for any reason”.

Cop-out answer. Your white flag is up, I guess. Feel free to take it down if wanted.

In his defense, your views on communism are wrong. You’re reasoning—provided I get this right—is this:

1. Capitalist and Communist economies are based from their theories, which creates two examples of each: the theoretical version (from Smith and Marx’s original models) and the real-life version (the one that turns out in practice). 2. Theoretical and Real-life instances of Capitalism have both happened and function, as they are the same. 3. Theoretical and Real-life Communism are not the same, the former being so idealistic that it has never happened. Furthermore, Real-life communism has and will always fail to bring forth the prosperity theoretical communism speaks of. 4. Thus, capitalism is better.

First of all, today’s practice of the free market is not according to Smith’s capitalism. Any government that has control over the way an economy is run (forcing minimum wage, working hours, etc.) is not 100% capitalist. That is a Mixed economy, because it borrows traits one would normally see in a Command Economy. Most Mixed economies are socialist, even if they run on a modified capitalist economy.

Second, Marx’s idea of a command economy is one where all services are provided insofar as barriers such as class, race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on have no bearing on who gets the base needs to survive. Thus, those in control of the means of production are not exploiting the workers who provide the simple labour. Unfortunately, Russia, China, and other countries inspired by this idea implemented them in a way that was as much a corrupt dictatorship as it was communist. It’s not impossible to get communism’s results, but trying to implement Marx’s idea of Communism isn’t impossible. Capitalist nations have had a long time to develop. Communist nations simply returned to capitalism. Communism can still work though, it’s just that communist nations are almost always pressured in to going capitalist when they start to fail.

Finally, theoretical capitalism is what lead to people wanting real-life capitalism. Theoretical capitalism, if it ever really existed, is what lead workers in the US to form the IWW to improve working conditions. Do you see people on the streets complaining about being sick of working 10-12 hours a day, six days a week? Do you see children in every city of every ethnicity being forced to work dangerous (sometimes lethal) jobs? Of course not, because that’s insane! But according to theoretical capitalism, that’s how things worked. The modern model of free-enterprise used in most European countries, as well as the US, does not have any of these issues. Thus it cannot be the same thing.

4. Okay. I accept your white flag. If you wish to take it back, do so. You have the means. If you don’t want people to suspect data-dodging, it helps to prove that you aren’t.

Also, by living better, I mean living conditions, including average personal luxuries, not amount of government influence in people’s lives.

For a Cuban, that miracle-working magic healthcare has a habit of going into the record-burner once that Cuban is designated an undesirable, political enemy, or both, then sent to a political prison camp.

At least you can admit that Communist Party members get special benefits.

Don’t accuse him of data-dodging. Sure, wikipedia ain’t the greatest source, but he did cite it every time to refute points you made. Speaking of data-dodging, where are your sources? There are none that I can see. This leads me to believe one of three things: either that you haven’t logged any research for whatever reason, that you’re misinformed, or that this data you use to defend yourself is BS. Because I like to think of myself as kind and understanding, I’ll assume your case is the first one. As such, I’d appreciate it if I could be linked to wherever your evidence is.

Now I’m confused a little by what you’re saying here about Cuba. Are you saying that non-communist Cubans are treated so poorly that it undermines their access to free health-care? Or that Cuba’s communistic health-care system results in it being designated as “undesirable, political enemy, or both” and that holding this idea in areas unlike Cuba could result in being “sent to a political prison camp”? If you mean the former, then how is that different than the US? People have been and are still being sent to prison for protesting reasonable issues. In the latter question’s case, that is not the fault of communism. Rather it is the fault of those judging a person’s character by their beliefs on how to run a state—not to mention how nonsensical it is to do such a thing.

Also; government influence has an effect on people’s personal luxuries. Street lights, public libraries, public drinking fountains, and so on are all luxuries that are not necessarily available in other countries/places. In theory, I could be forced to pay for these things, but my government uses its resources to provide me these luxuries.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

Ehh, can the name-calling. Calling people “troll” and “child/teenager” isn’t very upstanding. I haven’t done it to you so don’t do it to me.

I am not name calling you. I am pointing out that what your doing gives of the impression of being a Troll or Child. Its because of shit like this:

4. Okay. I accept your white flag. If you wish to take it back, do so. You have the means. If you don’t want people to suspect data-dodging, it helps to prove that you aren’t.

Also, by living better, I mean living conditions, including average personal luxuries, not amount of government influence in people’s lives.

For a Cuban, that miracle-working magic healthcare has a habit of going into the record-burner once that Cuban is designated an undesirable, political enemy, or both, then sent to a political prison camp.

At least you can admit that Communist Party members get special benefits.

After you make a claim such as “In fact’ poor people in the US live better then any person in any communist country has ever lived (except for the Communist Party members, and the Great Leaders).”

I point out that its very obviously not the case. With the example of Cuban health care and life expectancy, but you suddenly start trying to move the Goal posts again.
Not that that will change the facts that health care for the average and poor person in Cuba is much much better than in the USA. Even though the USA has leading edge Facilities that are Top of the world class and better than the best in Cuba, the average life expectancy of people in Cuba is higher. This just highlights the stupidity of trying to move the goal posts by saying that for a Cuban the health care has a habit of disappearing or that party members get special benefits. Fact is there are more poor people in the USA that can´t afford decent health care than political undesirables in cuba and that at per capita level.

Fact is many people in Cuba that are not party members live better than many of the poorer people in the US, many of them actually live better than many communist party members. Because privileges are not actually given for party membership but the political and economic station that Person (Party member or not) holds themselves. So not any different from a capitalist country. You will find USA political party members receiving practically the same privileges. The difference is (if at all) that party membership is more of a precondition in Cuba than in the USA where being born and raised into a rich family is more of a precondition.


This is my last post addressing you. I just checked you profile and screams Troll(age 13 only been around a month), which you have proofed to be with the style in which you argue. If you seriously believe that the last one making an argument is the “winner”, no matter the quality of the arguments made, then there is no helping you.

I trust that people that are reading silently and are interested in the topic will look above the last post made, to check on what has been said and they will notice the difference.

 
Flag Post

Okay. Goodbye. Thanks for telling me the difference between getting an impression of someone being worthy of an insult and straightforwardly insulting someone.

Anyone feel free to pick up on any of these arguments.

And when it comes to life, it matters HOW you live and WHETHER you live, not HOW LONG you live.

It is better to be dead and free and mourned by your loving family, than dead and red in every way alongside your family that was labeled politically dissident.

I’m also glad to see that people can admit that a country imprisons and murders thousands, to even millions of their own people, while half-defending them.

 
Flag Post

No takers? Oh well.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

No takers? Oh well.

… That’s it?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

No takers? Oh well.

… That’s it?

What, are you Johnny’s replacement? If so, welcome.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

No takers? Oh well.

… That’s it?

What, are you Johnny’s replacement? If so, welcome.

So, you don’t have anything to say in defense of communism?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

So, you don’t have anything to say in defense of communism?

No, because you assume too much, and because I don’t want to get into this with you. Especially if you don’t like it when people don’t respond after a while.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

So, you don’t have anything to say in defense of communism?

No, because you assume too much, and because I don’t want to get into this with you. Especially if you don’t like it when people don’t respond after a while.

No, no, take your time.

 
Flag Post

This will express my opinion. It’s not fact, simply opinion and theories.
Communism isn’t bad/evil. If you’re considering the goodness of it, you should consider looking into “True” Communism, and learn of its roots. I’ll focus on Carl Marx (as his views were virtuous, and is author one of the most well-known Communist texts in history) Marx knew that he was imperfect, and so too would be his idea. The dream of Communism was quite far-fetched on a large scale, certainly, but he left us the idea of making a better society that’s above that of Modern-Day Capitalism.
I think of The Communist Manifesto as more of a philosophical manifesto than that of an economic one. The primary concern of it was the equality and good of men, and unequal economics caused inequality and evil treatment of men. He goes on to give his own idea on how a more emphasized Communion can be for the good of people, and as the world has shown, this is actually true. In his time, Capitalism was showing some of its worst products of laborers, and his views could have been very easily agreed with by many people. As of today, though, we’ve associated Communism, while it can be good, with the bad that was brought up by the Communist Elitist-Party. We end up generalizing that Communism is indeed the result of an Authoritative, but the roots of it were meant to be virtual equality between men, not further separation between the Proletariats and the Bourg. Leninist-Marxism has resulted in an even greater divide, and even further confrontation, the exact opposite of what Marx intended.
True Communism is, in an Empirical stance, ineffective in which it doesn’t account for human imperfections within the system. It is an unrealistic dream for this world, in which would be extremely unlikely to work. A Communion between people is usually expressed in much smaller scales somewhat effectively in the world, as corruptibility and resources can be managed more-so on smaller, more local scales. On a large scale, though… that almost always results in disaster by the mass disorganization between the State, but at the same time, Communism NEEDS to be the way of small territories in order to work effectively. That’s where it gets difficult. The first thing that comes to mind, though, is a Confederation between the smaller Communist societies in order to preserve the State.
Perhaps if people were more locally focused, and bound by a good Communist Constitution, Communist societies could live relatively well. Getting a hold of resources outside of each society’s borders could be difficult, though, but all that a Communist society would need are the necessities (that it could get within its borders) and perhaps resources for technological improvements (which would probably have to be imported).
I’m sure I made flaws in my statements, so feel free to critique it. I just went with it for the most part, and did a good amount of editing that might have branched from my original point. Hopefully it’s not too bad, though.

 
Flag Post

before i continue: I must say I’m surprised at how calm this thread has been. compared to, you know, the average thread on the subject.
[quote] Communism isn’t bad/evil. [/quote]
naturally. As long as you aren’t refering to the horrible mess known as “Russian communism”…ah, I see. you use the more specific “leninist-marxism” to refer to that awfull mess…
But it COULD be flawed and unworkable in pure form.

[quote] I think of The Communist Manifesto…[/quote]
If you ask me, marx should have stuck to the economic ideas. He bit off WAY more than he should have. and anyone who wants to have a similar revolution in America needs to realize that we have a system for doing so without bloodshed-an election every 4 years.
[quote] True Communism is, in an Empirical stance, ineffective in which it doesn’t account for human imperfections within the system[/quote]

Now. By “true” communism, do you mean abstracted communism, “from each acording to his ability, to each according to his need”? That, I agree, is a very nice idea. and we both seem to agree it can’t work without a bit of help…

You and i diverge in this: I think that communism needs to be shoved together with capitalism for the best results, whereas you think it can stand on its own if only we figure out how to couple it with a self-correcting government.

now. In capitalism, if a product is flawed, people stop buying it and production soon ceases, freeing up labor for other purposes. The most productive get access to the most stuff. The astronaughts and the richest get to ride rockets to the moon. The genius has to do something practical to survive, and so doesn’t focus on his ultimate creation. but some people go hungry, not all of whom go hungry because they’re lazy.

In communism ( if it’s working at all), nobody goes hungry, but not everyone necesarily gets to ride a rocket into space. the genius invents his ultimate creation, but sees no need to implement it.

Force and twist these together: to each according to his basic survival needs (food, shelter, and internet access), but then distribute the remaining surplus based upon productivity. the more productive can afford an up-to-date computer, while the genius has time to invent something super-cool, AND sees a reason to implement it so he can afford to bungee jump from the international space station. then three years later, based on that invention, ANOTHER genius develops an ultra-cheap rocket method.

Now if only we can get the welfare checks sorted out, we should be good to go.

 
Flag Post

Why can’t communism work: It is simple. In capitalism, you are forced to expand your business, think something new, perform very well to be rich. In a communist country, why would I work hard? I’d work in easy,relaxing jobs, not trying hard. Everyone gets approximately the same thing, right? When everybody thinks like that, the economy fails.

What is needed? Some system between capitalism and communism. People can be poor or rich, but the poor people will not be extremely poor and the rich people won’t have billions of dollars. The country will provide decent jobs and necessary products for cheap, but you’ll be able to buy whatever you want from the non-government producers.