NationStates Jolt Archive

In your own respected opinion, will communism ever work? Why do you think like that? If not, then why not, and if so then why will it work? Just trying to see where everyone stands on this issue. Three well thought out ideas about the pro's and cons would be good also.

In your own respected opinion, will communism ever work? Why do you think like that? If not, then why not, and if so then why will it work? Just trying to see where everyone stands on this issue. Three well thought out ideas about the pro's and cons would be good also.

It runs against human nature. it makes a pretty concept, but it will never work.

It could have probably worked in some circumstances. I think had it been introduced early enough in Japan it might have been very successful.

I don't think it will work now. I don't even think the concepts behind Communism--on paper--approach anything resmbling "pretty" or even "well-meaning."

Of course it will work, eventually. If not communism, then some sort of socialism. Eventually people will realize that they aren't getting paid what they deserve and at that point capitalism will be obsolete. Capitalism is barbaric, corrupt, and blatantly oppressive. In a socialist state, everyone would make their fair share (besides the fact that most of this "fair share" will go to the government), while at the same time the wealthy would help prop up such things as universal healthcare and universal mass transit.

In a socialist state, the government decides what is a "fair share."

You could always have a communism-like system in which there is no government and everyone acts based on the actions of the people around them.

But why should the lazy people deserve the same as me, a hard-working man? I am strongly against Communism. The smaller the government the better. Honestly, If I lived in a communist nation, I would work as little as possible because I would be getting the same as everyone else, and so would many of you, even if you refuse to admit it.

You could always have a communism-like system in which there is no government and everyone acts based on the actions of the people around them.

Isnt that anarchy?

a moderate form of Anarchy is the only sensible way of government. Authority is an unneccesary Evil

But why should the lazy people deserve the same as me, a hard-working man? I am strongly against Communism. The smaller the government the better. Honestly, If I lived in a communist nation, I would work as little as possible because I would be getting the same as everyone else, and so would many of you, even if you refuse to admit it.

Then you are lazy if you do not contribute. This is why there is issues with Communism, its because people dont want it to work in the first place.

I don't think communism is even particularly relevant to modern society - the "working class" of the USA for example isn't exactly starving (quite the opposite in fact).

I don't know that communism will ever work. What does it even look like? Marx didn't even know. Essentially, I think it was meant to organized anarchy, but no country has ever reached that point. It ends up being a dictatorship. The leader of the communists decides he likes his cushy seat. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Capitalism is barbaric? Please.

Capitalism recognizes that our posessions, and the results of our labor are our own and it enforces our rights as such. Property is an extension of life on every level: whether you take the time out of your life to build a fence or take the time out of your life to earn a couple of bucks by helping someone out, the concept remains.

Capitalism promotes mutually beneficient exhanges. Communism only endores them in certain, specific areas. Claming that capitalism is bad or "barbaric" because it can be abused is like telling me that alcohol shouldn't exist because it can be abused too. The avenues for abuse and oppression are much more abundant in communism than under capitalism.

Well... In a Perfect society Communism would be the only good form of economy. Yet we are neither in a perfect society, nor are we perfect, thus Capitalism or Socialism is the way to go.
Now, I know this can be taken as bias, but, the Early Christian Church was Communalist, in this case a Christian form of Communism, and Taught communalism as dogma.

Isnt that anarchy?
There's a fine line, but basically in communism there is no government because there doesn't need to be one and in anarchy there just isn't one

It runs against human nature. it makes a pretty concept, but it will never work.

I don't think it runs exactly against human nature, but assumes that everybody acts rational and won't harm anybody else.
That is just to idealistic, but not against the human nature, at last I hope so :rolleyes:

I don't think communism is even particularly relevant to modern society - the "working class" of the USA for example isn't exactly starving (quite the opposite in fact).

ISnt 13 percent of Americans in pverty? Wouldnt it be nice to help out the people who are barely making it?

But why should the lazy people deserve the same as me, a hard-working man? I am strongly against Communism. The smaller the government the better.

Well said.

Communists and socialists have a bizarre view of the word "fair". They think it is "fair" to whine and rally against those who work hard and receive just compensation for their work. They think it is "fair" to have punitive taxation rates against the hard working. They think it is "fair" to give oodles of cash to those who do not wish to work or who do not make a productive contribution.

Communism is a system which provides no incentive for endeavour. It is the encouragement of enterprise which is the true creator of wealth and employment, not state-mandated oppressive "equalised distributions of cash".

Let's see ... someone do the research and list every Communist nation and how long they've been Communist. If they've lasted as a Communist nation more than 50 years without a takeover, I'd say that's pretty successful.

Don't give me crap about poverty and whatnot, either. Some of the poorest people in the world live in the United States - the nation which is supposed to be the pinnacle of Capitalism.

So, hey ... someone get on it. Do the research.

Let's see ... someone do the research and list every Communist nation and how long they've been Communist. If they've lasted as a Communist nation more than 50 years without a takeover, I'd say that's pretty successful.

Don't give me crap about poverty and whatnot, either. Some of the poorest people in the world live in the United States - the nation which is supposed to be the pinnacle of Capitalism.

So, hey ... someone get on it. Do the research.
Very good point...

Capitalism recognizes that our posessions, and the results of our labor are our own and it enforces our rights as such. Property is an extension of life on every level: whether you take the time out of your life to build a fence or take the time out of your life to earn a couple of bucks by helping someone out, the concept remains.


I'll be sure to have every possession you worked hard for that you've taken with you listed on your tombstone. ;)

Very good point...

I goes with the one on my head.

ISnt 13 percent of Americans in pverty? Wouldnt it be nice to help out the people who are barely making it?

I wouldn't consider communism helpful in that regard. Attempts at communism so far have just increased poverty, and further attempts would probably do the same.

I think that people should be able to manage their own resources. Not only is it fairer than having it controlled by a government, but it's also more efficient.

I do not really like capitalism because it makes iven the most respectable men turn to vile greed, yet I think that there needs to be a Communist reform, meaning that someone needs to reform the ideals of communism.

I think that people should be able to manage their own resources.

I think that people would buy themselves a new X-Box system before fixing the potholes in the road. People cannot be trusted with their own money. That was proven in October 1929.

Technicaly, communism is the perfect society. I'm not talking about Stalin, Lenin, Mao and other great atrocities. I'm talking about what Marx really intended and that is equality. Everybody in a communist society is equal. If every single person is as equal as every other person, there would be no hate (at least, not for those in the same country), no jealously, no envy..basicly none of the bad emotions.
But of course, in order to get rid of all of the bad emotions, you would end up having to get rid of all of the good emotions as well. Remeber I said it would be a perfect society, not the best. Communism would simply not work because of human emotion. If we had no emotion, then we would probably all be robots and our lives would be much simplier and easier, but not better. All emotion is better than no emotion.
As to if it could happen, to some extent. When Marx wrote the communist manifesto one thing had not yet been created: the middle class. If the middle class had not been created and destroyed a lot of the hungry masses, then yes the proliteriat would have rebelled against the burgoise. And they would try to make everything better for the common man, but they could never make everybody equal. Revolutions and rebellions often end up becoming what the people who started it didn't want it to be.
Today, the rich poor gap is growing and growing and growing with no signs of stopping. Is it concievable that all these pooer nations are going to get pissed off at the better ones? Yes, in fact it already has happened. But that does not necessarily mean that all the undeveloped nations in the world will join together and rise up against the developed and communism will spread throughout the world.
I hope a particle of what I meant to say is actually written up there.

I think that people would buy themselves a new X-Box system before fixing the potholes in the road. People cannot be trusted with their own money. That was proven in October 1929.

Well the government is made of people too, so they are equally untrustworthy. Besides, if Microsoft workers couldnt drive to work there wouldnt be any X-Boxes.

I think that people would buy themselves a new X-Box system before fixing the potholes in the road. People cannot be trusted with their own money. That was proven in October 1929.
HAHA Keruvalia strikes again!!

I wouldn't consider communism helpful in that regard. Attempts at communism so far have just increased poverty, and further attempts would probably do the same.

I think that people should be able to manage their own resources. Not only is it fairer than having it controlled by a government, but it's also more efficient.

What about those who cannot manage their own resources, for whatever reason, or those who are working as hard as possible, but cannot seem to cut a break? What do we do about that if communism is not an option?

Well the government is made of people too, so they are equally untrustworthy. Besides, if Microsoft workers couldnt drive to work there wouldnt be any X-Boxes.

Governments have oversight committees, checks and balances, and elections which they must earn. Individuals do not.

What about those who cannot manage their own resources, for whatever reason, or those who are working as hard as possible, but cannot seem to cut a break? What do we do about that if communism is not an option?

Have *mild* socialism. That is, a little bit of tax to help the genuinely unfortunate.

Have *mild* socialism. That is, a little bit of tax to help the genuinely unfortunate.

So ... a welfare system. Now we're getting somewhere!

Governments have oversight committees, checks and balances, and elections which they must earn. Individuals do not.

Governments make the laws that keep them in check. They pay the people who enforce these laws. I'm really bubbling over with trust for the soviet union to keep itself free from corruption (yes, I know the SU is dead, it was hypothetical).

So ... a welfare system. Now we're getting somewhere!

Duh. You don't need to assume that a poster has an extremist stance by default.

Let's see ... someone do the research and list every Communist nation and how long they've been Communist. If they've lasted as a Communist nation more than 50 years without a takeover, I'd say that's pretty successful.

Don't give me crap about poverty and whatnot, either. Some of the poorest people in the world live in the United States - the nation which is supposed to be the pinnacle of Capitalism.

So, hey ... someone get on it. Do the research.

I do not believe there ever existed such a thing as a true communism 'cause that would would exclude a government...
And as far as I know there is always a near omnipotent government involved in those nations claiming to be a comunist state.
And that is perhaps mainly were the most troubles are coming from :D
But as stated above the view on mankind is just to idealistic in communism, so a government has to be in place. It's quite impossible to implement true communism on a large scale.
Perhabs you can find a small community of reasonable people, with whom it could function. But everybody has to know everybody, and I think this would still be almost impossible to do...

Duh. You don't need to assume that a poster has an extremist stance by default.

I never assume ... this is why we discuss things.

Welfare sytems in the US are horrible in my opinion.

Governments make the laws that keep them in check. They pay the people who enforce these laws. I'm really bubbling over with trust for the soviet union to keep itself free from corruption (yes, I know the SU is dead, it was hypothetical).

Ah! So we mix general mistrust of the government. Good ... I'm liking this even more. Unfortunately, Communism is an economic philosophy more than anything and in order to keep an economy, one must have bookkeepers.

We call them "Congress".

Let's see ... someone do the research and list every Communist nation and how long they've been Communist. If they've lasted as a Communist nation more than 50 years without a takeover, I'd say that's pretty successful.

Don't give me crap about poverty and whatnot, either. Some of the poorest people in the world live in the United States - the nation which is supposed to be the pinnacle of Capitalism.

So, hey ... someone get on it. Do the research.

The US is nowhere near the "pinnacle of capitalism" by any stretch of the imagination. But consider that we do, as a point of fact, have a lot more people who are having problems with overeating as opposed to malnutrition.

HUMAN NATURE BREEDS GREED THERE IS NO WAY IT GOULD EVER WORK BUT IT WAS I GOOD IDEA :mp5:

Depends on the definition of "works". It definitely works in a sense that it provides a small group with absolute totalitarian power - which just happens to be the REAL goal of all Communists.

Welfare sytems in the US are horrible in my opinion.

A welfare system in the US is an absolute necessity. Capitalism makes the rich/poor divide extremely wide. It's why less than 1% of the people in the United States controls 90% of the money.

I always offer to take people on a road trip through the Ozarks if they think Capitalism makes everyone able to bootstrap themselves to success. I can show you that if you have a roof over your head (never mind electricity, running water, and shoes) then you're better off than nearly 15% of the United States.

This "silent minority" relies so heavily on the kindness of strangers not abolishing the welfare system in the United States that they've become slaves to the very thing that we think gives us freedom - our imagined god-given right to personal property. Something our Founding Fathers called "inalienable", the right to property, is so far out of reach for so many people in the United States that I can only dry heave with rage about it.

[/rant]

The Problem with Communism is that there is no incentive, without a reason to work the economy falters and cannot support itself until the government collapses. Also Communism is a flawed system, it is not supposed to have a strong central government and this lends itself to problems, such as technological progress. Without an incentive to work and the government subsidation to support new work the government is innately flawed and will not succeed.

The US is nowhere near the "pinnacle of capitalism" by any stretch of the imagination. But consider that we do, as a point of fact, have a lot more people who are having problems with overeating as opposed to malnutrition.

This is true. We are a fat people. Fat and lazy. Capitalism does that. Too much food, poorly distributed, and left in the trough unchecked. Just a bad idea all around if you ask me.

I never assume ... this is why we discuss things.

Well, you said you were "getting somewhere" as if you had moved me from an extremist stance. My stance didnt change.

Ah! So we mix general mistrust of the government. Good ... I'm liking this even more. Unfortunately, Communism is an economic philosophy more than anything and in order to keep an economy, one must have bookkeepers.

We call them "Congress".

Well, I wouldn't want an economic system that requires so much enforcement, but I do believe it is good to have a little taxation to fund worthwhile causes. It's worth remembering that a capitalist society is more directly democratic than an elected government that controls the economy. If you don't like a product in a capitalist society, don't buy it. If enough people don't like it, it will stop being made. In a more controlled economy, you have to wait until the next election, if you even have them.

One more thing. The main idea of Communism is abolition of private property. And the abolition of private property inevitably and automatically leads to mass murder. So ANY adherent of Communism is subhuman scum.

A welfare system in the US is an absolute necessity. Capitalism makes the rich/poor divide extremely wide. It's why less than 1% of the people in the United States controls 90% of the money.

I always offer to take people on a road trip through the Ozarks if they think Capitalism makes everyone able to bootstrap themselves to success. I can show you that if you have a roof over your head (never mind electricity, running water, and shoes) then you're better off than nearly 15% of the United States.

This "silent minority" relies so heavily on the kindness of strangers not abolishing the welfare system in the United States that they've become slaves to the very thing that we think gives us freedom - our imagined god-given right to personal property. Something our Founding Fathers called "inalienable", the right to property, is so far out of reach for so many people in the United States that I can only dry heave with rage about it.

[/rant]

Im just saying that the goal of the government should be to serve the people. Every on eshould be able to live without needing to stuggle to make ends meet. IM not dissing the system, just the way its being done.

This is true. We are a fat people. Fat and lazy. Capitalism does that.

No, human success has done that. We are adapted to survive in conditions where food is hard to come by. However, our successes in agriculture, etc. have allowed us to produce more food than we need. Humans aren't evolved to avoid overeating.

Well said.

Communists and socialists have a bizarre view of the word "fair". They think it is "fair" to whine and rally against those who work hard and receive just compensation for their work. They think it is "fair" to have punitive taxation rates against the hard working. They think it is "fair" to give oodles of cash to those who do not wish to work or who do not make a productive contribution.

Communism is a system which provides no incentive for endeavour. It is the encouragement of enterprise which is the true creator of wealth and employment, not state-mandated oppressive "equalised distributions of cash".
YOU HAVE TO WORK IF YOU WANT TO GET WHAT YOU NEED!! thats when
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" comes in. SO IT DOES WORK!!

Well, you said you were "getting somewhere" as if you had moved me from an extremist stance. My stance didnt change.


Well ... actually ... I said "we're" getting somewhere. Big difference. :)

Communism can not work after a society has reached a certain porportion of size and population. Its the same for absolute democracy and lazie-faire.

True capitalism kind of shot itself in the foot as shown by the Great Depression.

Once a society develops to a certain level, it needs to organize itself better to properly govern its amounts of citizens, economy, resources, defense, and etc in order to run correctly.

The best thing you could have as a communist is have a small group of like minded individuals in a small area cut off from the rest of the other societies. The next step would be a highly socialism based country. Communism collapses after a certain extent because it simply isn't DESIGNED well enough to encompass modern reality. I have NO idea why people still believe in communism. A true communist society has NEVER succeeded after a few years.

One more thing. The main idea of Communism is abolition of private property. And the abolition of private property inevitably and automatically leads to mass murder. So ANY adherent of Communism is subhuman scum.

Many Native American tribes, mine included, do not believe that we can ever own anything since we don't take it with us when we die. We merely borrow it from our children, but never own it.

"Private Property" was an alien concept until the Europeans arrived.

Thanks for calling us "subhuman scum".

I figure a lot of things are possible if you raise an isolated group of kids with the desired point of view. I mean... if they aren't exposed to anything different, they don't know any other way of life.

Aaand... to stop adults from thinking they're better and ruining everything, have the colony run by robots. Yeah, that's right. Highly sophisticated, but emotionless robots. It would definitely work!

Really.

It has worked in the past, but in very small scenarios. Socialist Sweeden, the Iroquois, and in kibbutzes. I attend a socialist camp every summer that works exept when it comes to kandy, then it goes curropt. WE NEED OUR SUGAR!!

Most recently it hasn't worked because of what i liek to call "Bad management" i.e. Stalin, mao, the north korean ppl ect. It would of worked under trotsky.

yay communism!! :)

One more thing. The main idea of Communism is abolition of private property. And the abolition of private property inevitably and automatically leads to mass murder. So ANY adherent of Communism is subhuman scum.
yes it abolishes private property but not personal property

yes it abolishes private property but not personal property

What's the difference?

What's the difference?
Private: ownership of property (or other assets) by individuals or corporations; under a system of private property, owners have certain property rights, but there may also be legal restrictions on the use of property

Personal: means property of any kind except real property. It may be tangible (having physical existence) or intangible (having no physical existence, such as patents, inventions, and copyrights).

It has worked in the past, but in very small scenarios. Socialist Sweeden, the Iroquois, and in kibbutzes. I attend a socialist camp every summer that works exept when it comes to kandy, then it goes curropt. WE NEED OUR SUGAR!!

Most recently it hasn't worked because of what i liek to call "Bad management" i.e. Stalin, mao, the north korean ppl ect. It would of worked under trotsky.

yay communism!! :)

I meant a large size with a large population. Communism has NEVER worked after a certain size. It either transforms into a society of socialism, or tolitarianism. At which case individual independence, civil rights, and liberty go out the window anyway completely ruining the point communism was intended to take. So **** communism. A defunked half assed idea that was nevery fully thought out.

I see a lot of the argument that communism steals from the hard worker and such. I imagine, in a controled experiment, a man would be content with what he has done, but as soon as he sees another man, whom he views as not perfectly equal, jealousy arises. Maybe if people would stop worrying about what everyone else has and instead focus on honest work and what they need, it may be possible.

Well, in America small groups of people would unite there money and work together. They would share most of their possesions and live in Harmony. Only the lazy( which communism is suppost to protect) were not allowed into there "mini society". Sadly you cannot root out the lazy in a nation - thats called genocide - somthing Stalin did that resulted in mass hating by the people.

:headbang: sry bout the spelling and grammer. :headbang:

Communism will technically never work because it flies in the face of the human ideal of bettering the individual (whether it is through the material or immaterial). The main problem with Communism is that it follows a new form of Gnosticism--where a few people know the supreme secret truth and attempt to manifest Heaven from the earthly realm. Communism also supports the abolition of religious institutions because they place another form of authority over mankind--that which is beyond the State. Try enforcing worldwide Atheism.

Furthermore, Marx's Communist Manifesto is for the most part a faulty philosophy of history. Marx opens with the sweeping (and unarguable) statement that "history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." By this assertion alone, Marx undercuts all of man's developments and his potential (yes, the universal man). In short, a society cannot be robbed of its identity in favor of establishing all-encompassing mediocrity with a broadstroke brush.

Thusly, Communism/Marxism will NEVER work because its foundations are faulty--the whole world would never collectively abandon their identities to line the pockets of the underclasses.

I see a lot of the argument that communism steals from the hard worker and such. I imagine, in a controled experiment, a man would be content with what he has done, but as soon as he sees another man, whom he views as not perfectly equal, jealousy arises. Maybe if people would stop worrying about what everyone else has and instead focus on honest work and what they need, it may be possible.

Actually, as mentioned above, it isn't equality that pisses workers off. Far from it. Equality is the IDEAL wish for most workers. Its others getting a damned free ride off other worker's hard effort. I don't see HOW you got jealousy mixed up with lazyness. Either you are damned lazy yourself which is the reason you don't see it, or you haven't had real working experience with lazy people in your work place.

I see a lot of the argument that communism steals from the hard worker and such. I imagine, in a controled experiment, a man would be content with what he has done, but as soon as he sees another man, whom he views as not perfectly equal, jealousy arises. Maybe if people would stop worrying about what everyone else has and instead focus on honest work and what they need, it may be possible.

But isn't that what has advanced us as a society? Without competition, we lose that drive that says you have to work your hardest or you will not survive. That principle has fueled evolution from the first organisms.

a moderate form of Anarchy is the only sensible way of government. Authority is an unneccesary Evil
anarchy is never going to work because everyone would get busy looting and killing and no one would do any work or farming or any thing taht we need to sustain ourselves.

communism can not work although in its purest form it would be a relatively good system. it simply cant work because people arent good enough or moral enough to make it work, and what doctors would want to make the same ammount of money as a janitor? or an unemployed person? it simply cant work because not all people do the same amount of work so even in its own system of trying to make everything fair for everyone it would be creating unfairnesses

Hypothetically, Communism could work in a very small population where everyone is deticated to bettering the whole. Where you might find such a population is beyond me...

I have more of a question than a responce for now:

Where exactly do you people get the idea that free-market capitalism provides incentives for hard-work, innovation, and so on?

I apologize at the outset.

First. one must have an understanding of Hegel (The Philosophy of Right) to understand Marx. Interesting note - Lenin admitted prior to his death that he had only recently read Hegel, implying that he got the whole thing wrong.

Under the dialectic, communism as an economic system arose out of a conflict with the prior system of production (socialism). In a communist society, a man/woman could be a fisher in the morning, bake in the afternoon and phiosophize in the evening without ever being a fisherman, baker or philosopher. Sounds great, huh? The worker would control the means of production, thereby avoiding the alienation that arose during the course of the industrial revolution. More good news. All of this would then lead to the end of the class system and the introduction of the brotherhood of man.

However, modern "communism" was not true to its historical roots. More importantly, however, was the fallacy underlying the theory regarding the nature of man, as noted above.

Short story- great reading, never work.

I have more of a question than a responce for now:

Where exactly do you people get the idea that free-market capitalism provides incentives for hard-work, innovation, and so on?

Same reason why people working for commission are more "productive" than salaried workers or employees on the hourly wage system (also how employees on the hourly wage system tend to work overtime and longer hours)--one's own success is placed into their own hands. If one is responsible for their own income (and ability to display wealth, establish financial security, etc.) then the individual takes the incentive to work by their own volition.

Communism can work, and it has worked for 35 years in Yugoslavia

One thing to keep in mind. In science and stuff like that, there is no exact truth. Anything can be proven different despite how much proof is against it. Don't base your opinion on if communism as a whole can work because of specific cases. Just because the USSR fell does not mean that it is impossible to tweak the ideals and running of communism so that it does work. I mean, if the Wright Brothers had thought that just because all the other people trying to fly failed that it was impossible, then we may not have airplanes today. Heck, if all people viewed every possible experience based entirely on failed proof, we would all still be cavemen doing the only things that don't need proving, stabbing things and eating them.

To rewrite this shortly for those who don't like reading, just because Communism in its different forms has not worked in its past that it could never work at all.

Oh, and look at America. We are slowly turning away from Capitilism and going way of Socialism. Slowly, but surely, the presidents will keep passing plans that increase taxes to create programs to help everyone except the uber-rich.

I have more of a question than a responce for now:

Where exactly do you people get the idea that free-market capitalism provides incentives for hard-work, innovation, and so on?

True capitalism will eventually hurt the economy of a government due to its reckless nature. However, it DOES tend to provide incentives for hard work, innovation, and so on due to its nature of being a soul less institution only concerned of wealth and keeping good experienced, and dedicated, employees under its roof.

I think you are confusing capitalism with the industrial revolution. That said, it is VERY unwise to have true capitalism within a country due to its ability to become independent and even have the ability to counter itself with the government and even controll it.

Oh, and look at America. We are slowly turning away from Capitilism and going way of Socialism. Slowly, but surely, the presidents will keep passing plans that increase taxes to create programs to help everyone except the uber-rich.

No. You don't really get the nature of the relationship of Americas economy and government.

Its called Keynesian Economics. Look it up please. Where a moderate involvement of government in business' is required to have some reigns on the nations' economy so it doesn't spin out of control and take the whole country or industry down with it. True Lazie Faire capitalism as you want it, lost its chance with boning the country with the Great Depression.

Communism can never work. Sooner or later someone will get the idea to simply take over and run everything. I want to work for what I get and if I work harder than someone else then I should get more money. That just seems logical. Also, some people would just stop working and still recieve their paycheck and benefits. It is as simple as this: you work you get money you don't work you starve.

alrighty
communism...socialism...all this, I really only have a vague idea about. They are just such huge concepts, of personal, political, property, social, educational reform.

But, essentially, it's a political system. The thing that I see as the "important" idea of communism is that everyone gets rewarded according to the "fair" value of their work.

I can see this happening, maybe not 100%, but I can see it happening. I look at the world around me, I think about what I'm doing in my job, and think "wow, nobody actually needs me". The company would go on just fine without me. Sure, it needs *some* people, just not every single person.
I look at free software on the internet, and think "wow, people working without even being paid". I look at free software *foundations* which pay these people. It's great!

I think we're at the point in human history where humans can, on the most part, actually stop working. Not all of us, but we really don't need to work as hard as we currently do. The problem is, even if my workplace would be happy with me doing three hours work a day, I still want to buy that xbox. And a nice house. And even if I worked twice as hard, and got all my work done in three hours, my workplace would only pay me for three hours work.
So I might as well post on the nationstates message board. ;)

What I picture, under a communist workplace is that I go through school and go "I like computers, I think I'll do IT". I choose IT because it's something I enjoy, not because it pays well. In fact, since I'm sitting in a chair all day in a comfortable office, it probably pays less. The guy that goes "I'll be a bricklayer" and is out in the rain, he should get paid more.
Oh, but it's not so easy! I've done a four year university degree. So I should get paid more for that.
Still, we're both doing what we want. We both get paid for our work. The difference between that and capitalism is, in communism, assuming we're equally qualified, I'll get paid the same as the guy sitting next to me. Right now, I have no idea how much he gets paid. The company is trying to pay us as little as possible, but still get our expertise.
And I'm rambling now...

the point I was trying to make is that, in a communist system, you should be able to choose the job that you enjoy doing, and do that. The jobs that are more popular will have more demand. Either we can over-produce in those areas, or entice workers into other areas. Enticing workers to take other jobs is done just like in capitalism, you pay them more. Want to be a sewer cleaner? Of course not. But get paid like a dentist. Want to be a company CEO? Of course. Sure, but you get paid as much as the workers. You're in charge, but not carrying heavy boxes all day.
I don't think this is such a terrible idea. People still need to put in time and effort to get paid. If people educate themselves more, they get paid more.
It's really not so far from capitalism, with the exception that the crap jobs pay better and the good jobs pay worse. Kind of the opposite of capitalism right now. That's what I call "fair".

The questions I have are....if a company produces more, who gets the extra? If my factory makes twice the widgets, and sells them all for the same price...do the workers get double wages? Does the founder get the extra money? If not, why would he found the factory?
The communist answer is "if you do good, you get social credit". Invited to the best parties? heh, I'm antisocial enough, I'll pass.
Perhaps each worker could be paid a percentage of the extra money. Which effectively means we have capitalism again. Just capitalism between companies, rather than between individuals.
Perhaps the government gets the extra money, but then we have no incentive to work more than enough to pay our own set wages.
Perhaps the factory can get first choice of resources they need, which makes it even easier to over-produce next time. Still, where is the personal gain?
Perhaps the workers can get shorter hours. This works to my mind. They're doing well, working hard, so they get to work less hours in the day. The good supervisor takes note of the individuals and how much they work, and lets them leave earlier, too. So that one lazy guy doesn't get to work less (yes, we still have bosses. Even if they get paid the same as us)
We have the problem of leaving factories unusued while people go home early, but with multiple shifts of workers we can solve that relatively easily.

the next, big question is "who sets the quotas". I picture this working much like it currently does, where the "quota" is to pay each worker, plus a percentage for "tax". If my workers have a collective wage of $1000 and the tax rate is 100% then we need to earn $2000. Anything less and we need to cut jobs/get a government subsidy/take out a loan...whatever. The company still has to compete and earn its way.

This obviously needs work and refinement. My concepts of economic theory aren't great. But I could see a system like that working. It gives incentive to work hard, it gives incentive to become educated. It just doesn't give incentive to "climb the ladder" to become the boss. The person who most enjoys being the boss, and has the most ability is the one that takes that job.

Thoughts?
I know I'm only looking at one aspect of one flavor of communism (not sure of the correct names and labels) in a capitalist environment.

Communism will not work because people do not like being told what to do and need to govern themselves. The United States has many elected people attempting to give the people what they want, at least indirectly. In every society there will be the poor and all communism does is ensure nearly all of its citizens will be poor.

Marx felt communism would be the eventual system when the labor revolted, and they would govern themselves and share perfectly. He did not believe the system would work if it were forced on people, and it did not and will not.

Jesus's Kingdom of God may be a communist ideal. However, he made it very clear it was not a social or economic system ("Give to Caeser what is Caesar's") . What Jesus MAY have been talking about is a mindset and atmosphere of selflessness and sharing. If one puts God first and shares all they have freely, (and continues to work hard) there would be more givers than those who recieve. Add this to loving your neighbor, and one gets complete peace and happiness. There will always be those who do not agree, and therefore this cannot be a forced system or the peace and happiness does not exist. Also, this cannot perfectly happen because not all will live this way and no one is perfect but one can try to live this on their own and better the world. This idea of no poor and perfect peace resembles communism but is not a social system. It is a personal goal that when spread to others creates a better world.

Communism does not work, but if the ideals are lived personally in a free capatalist society one can better the world. The more people who live this way the better the world (in theroy). The best government, in my opinion, is one that allows as many freedoms as possible without allowing people to infringe on others freedoms, much like The United States. Programs to protect its citizens are needed to allow even the poor freedoms (life, as many liberties as possible, and within their liberties the pursuit of happiness) It is up to the citizens to care for eachother and share their wealth out of the kindness of their hearts.

So, personal communistic/Jesus like attitudes are the closest communism will ever come to working. Capitalism is the best (none are perfect) system one could have.

In your own respected opinion, will communism ever work?
Not as long as I'm alive :). If Communism were ever imposed on my country, I would use every ounce of my talent and energy to exploit it and cripple it. Now, I'm not terribly smart, rich, or powerful, but I'm stubborn as hell...I figure I could do a decent amount of damage.

It is as simple as this: you work you get money you don't work you starve.
Yeah. Funny thing is communists believe that too.
They just don't believe that the guy driving a garbage truck should get paid less than the guy driving a baby-products delivery van.

Communism can work, and it has worked for 35 years in Yugoslavia

I thought Yugoslavia was another of many places where communism failed.

I want to work for what I get and if I work harder than someone else then I should get more money.

I absolutely guarantee you that you work harder than your boss does. Your boss will always make more money.

Welcome to America.

I thought Yugoslavia was another of many places where communism failed.
Yeah, but I thought American was one of those places where capitalism failed ;)

No. You don't really get the nature of the relationship of Americas economy and government.

Its called Keynesian Economics. Look it up please. Where a moderate involvement of government in business' is required to have some reigns on the nations' economy so it doesn't spin out of control and take the whole country or industry down with it. True Lazie Faire capitalism as you want it, lost its chance with boning the country with the Great Depression.

Ah, but then it is no longer a true Capitilism, is it? Economically, the jist of everything is Capitilism means the people have all their own money, Socialism being that the Gvoernment takes some money and either reutrns it in some way or just spends it, while a Communism the Government takes all the money and spreads it out in some fashion.

Mr. John Keynes, while I know he was all for the general idea of people with their own money, never really talked that if you create programs to help the lower class and creating taxes that you are in fact no longer a true Capitilism. His works that created the Keynesianism are mainly about how to help full employment scales.

What I'm trying to say is, in general, by the government dabbling with business's and such, it is still heading towards a psuedo socialism. Sorry I had a more spammish and annoying way of saying so.

Having thought this over, I have come to a personal conclusion that no government can work at all, but neither can a lack of government, so overall the human race is doomed. Have a nice day!

If by true capitalism, one means "a free market with no government," then yes, the "economy of the government" is, obviously, injured. However, if by "true capitalism" you mean a government that taxes only enough to provide police, a military, and possibly education, then no, I do not see how it harms the "government economy." With a free market, there will be chaos. However, it's not so chaotic that one day Apple is in charge and then the next it's Microsoft, and then on the third day, comming from nowhere, Google launches its own OS and becomes king.

Also, there are people in this thread making things based upon nothing. I can't remember the name, but someone in this thread said that welfare is neccessary and helpful. According to a Prof. Bryan Caplan at GMU (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/e321/lab5.htm), there are hidden costs costs that one must take into consideration. First of all, in moving the wealth from rich to poor, one is going to destroy some of that wealth in the process paying for that move. Also, welfare provdes an incentive that is more than 0% for not working at all, or staying poor: you get free money for doing nothing or very little. So some people are going to opt to do that. According to the Library of Economics and Liberty (http://www.econlib.org/) (in an article whose name escapes me), welfare increases unemployment by 0.8%.

As for communism, I think that system would be a failure if implemented perfectly. If said system does the whole "trade jobs for a day" thing, you'd have no skilled labor. If I was a computer programmer and switched jobs with a farmer, the crops/livestock would all die from my incompetance and the farmer would bang his head on the desk in confusion. Some skills can be learnt easily by most, such as cooking. But how many people can, in just a day's time, be a fully trained and competant computer programmer, automechanic, pilot, doctor, or any number of other specialized careers. For communists, I'd assume the answer is to remove those occupations. But that then lowers the quality of life drastically, and so, even if communism were the fairest system on Earth, I'd opt out.

I absolutely guarantee you that you work harder than your boss does. Your boss will always make more money.

Welcome to America.
Oooh, make me that guarantee, so I can make you give me my money back!

My boss works much harder than I do, and--unless something really bizarre and disatrous happens--I will be making at least as much money as my boss within the next 5 years.

No.

I have more of a question than a responce for now:

Where exactly do you people get the idea that free-market capitalism provides incentives for hard-work, innovation, and so on?
it does already

why do u think we have soo many inventions and soo many hard working people in countries all across the world?

I have more of a question than a responce for now:

Where exactly do you people get the idea that free-market capitalism provides incentives for hard-work, innovation, and so on?
I get that idea from the fact that free-market capitalism has provided me, personally, with many incentives for hard work, innocation, and so on. It has also provided those incentives for all the people I have met in my lifetime.

Communism has been proven to work in small populations (Say about 100 people). However, society is incapable of having a purely communistic government, and is also just not prepared to be communist. So, it doesn't work, at least on the massive scale.

It works, but it would collapse in the long-term.

I think socialism and limited totalitarianism is necessary for developing countries. Until the people are well fed and well educated, they will never understand the more complex ideologies of capitalism and democracy.

Communism the ideology that everyone is equal, and given equal opportunities, not neccessarily equal everything. Also, the government still controls how the entire country works. Since I'm a communist since birth, I know what it clearly is. I'll state some communist and non-communist (but thought to be communist) examples:

Communist:

-The government telling people where they live in, and what they live in.
This is a communist practice, mostly because the government determines where you live, and who you live with. That also means that in a communist society, you don't live with your parents or any relatives, which can be dictated by your talents or the needs of the government.

-Everybody gets equal pay
Yes, everybody gets equal pay. Laborers have as much pay as doctors, and the easiest job has the same pay as the hardest job. The next one is the thing that makes sure that you are doing your part.

-Government determines your job, and your education.
If you're stupid, and they want you smart, they'll make you smart, or your dead or placed into another job. You usually can't pick out the job you want. If you want to be an Astronaut, tough luck; you're now an electrician.

Not Communist:

-People starving because of lack of agricultural issues.
Bullshit. There is no communist governments in the world so far. Stalin starved millions of people mostly because he was too much of an industrialist - and a psycho.

-"I get the same pay, no matter how much I work as everyone else."
This one sickens me. THAT'S NOT COMMUNISM. THAT'S MARXISM. Get it right. If you slack off, you get a different job, stil the same pay. But if you slack off, you could be farmer to now a toilet scrubber in a fast food restaurant (*shudders*)

-Russia's communist.
No.

Ah, but then it is no longer a true Capitilism, is it?
*sigh*

I'll say it again then. With caps on and emphisis.

NO. TRUE CAPITIALISM DIED IN THE U.S. AFTER THE GREAT DEPRESSION. THE U.S. USES KENYSIAN ECONOMIC THEORY. PLEASE LEARN MORE.

Communism cannot work because in order for it to be put in place or to continue working, some people must be silenced. Since when did we start thinking some government beurocrat could decide what we need to live? Conversley, who among us thinks they can tell others what they need to live?

Communism won't work because people do not want to be equal!

I know I don't, if your goal in life is a society of equals than you need to go see the doctor or something because you lost your natural born instinct. Capitalism drove the little sperm that created you!

No, it can't. Well, sort of. But before i start making assertions, I'll define some of my terms:
"Government": A violent or forceful entity that calls itself a government. A violent or forceful entity that does not call itself a government is a criminal
"Libertarianism" (The system I think is best): The idea that violence and force are bad and we should institute a government that does nothing or almost nothing but protect us from criminals and other governments. Communists would probably call libertarianism capitalism but there are plenty of systems they would call capitalism that are far from libertarianism.
Will communism work? Depends on your definition of communism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" can wok so long as everyone in the system is in it voluntarily and it is done without force. I can't see the above conditions being met in a large group, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.
Person who asks why free market encourages invention, it's because if you invent you have something new which will help you in making money if that’s what you chose to put your self to, or in whatever else you want. Show me any significant inventiveness ever been done for any other reason. Person who thinks government is responsible and people are not look (and you won't have to search far) at the world past or present and you'll disprove your self in a flash. People who think a free market can't work, give me an example of a problem and I’ll tell you how a self regulating system will sort that out, show me a problem in an existing "capitalist" society, and I’ll show you the criminal or government at fault. Sorry, but no one can hurt you without force, you can always chose to deal with someone else.

Communism won't work because people do not want to be equal!

I know I don't, if your goal in life is a society of equals than you need to go see the doctor or something because you lost your natural born instinct. Capitalism drove the little sperm that created you!
I don't know if it's a matter of wanting, exactly. People simply aren't equal, and they never will be, so artificially forcing people to be equal is inherently silly.

communism can work because it is powerful in means of its military is strong people will have to listen to you and cant say no. it cant work though because people will rebbel if pushed to much which is why communism failed in the first place. but it would be a win win situation if it were mixed with democrisy ( if i didnt spell that right im sorry) so people can choose the rules but also use communism to force the rules once implide. if i ruled an actual country that is how i would run it. peace by force is how it goes in the real world. always has been always will be. its up to the people if they choose to follow or not . its all about what they feel is right, if they dont want to follow the rules then shoot them or throw them out of the country, that or just dont let them in. it will work out eventually just gatta try once in awhile.

We are . . . the real revolutionaries--yes, we are going to tear the whole thing down! We shall destroy and smash everything, ha-ha-ha, with the result that everything will be smashed to smithereens and fly off in all directions, and nothing will remain standing!

Yes, we are going to destroy everything, and on the ruins we will build our temple! It will be a temple for the happiness of all! But we shall destroy the entire bourgeoisie, and grind them to powder--ha-ha-ha--to powder! Remember that! . . .

And remember that the Lenin who talked to you ten years ago no longer has any existence. He died a long time ago. In his place there speaks the new Lenin, who has learned that the ultimate truth lies in communism, which must now be brought into existence.

Lenin to Georgy Solomon, December 1917

I think Communism can certainly work. But before it does things will have to change both technologically and socially. Example with better or much more advanced technology we could eliminate the need for people to do the jobs no one wants to do.

Also, I don't think that greed is a permanent human trait. It is tought by society generally. So in time as society changes(though education) greed will become less of a factor until it is gone( like we are doing with racism)

Maybe what we concider 'communist' will have to change. For example. People seem to be caught up on incentive and rewarding hard work. Sure there will be incentive and reward - just not with money. The reward of doing a hard days work in whatever field a person works in. The respect of the community for doing something great. There are many more examples of non-monetary incentives and reward.

Textbook Marxist-Communism calls for a stateless society. This would be hard to achieve. I think a small 'government' of sorts would be needed. What it would be like i have no idea. It would have to be free and democratic thats for sure.

arths Orbit, you rock.

Communism is, for this post, a system where the workers own the means of production.

I think that we need to start up a new soft drink. So after a bit of research, experimentation on my own time, et cetera, I hold a conference in my town. This conference says, more or less, what the employment contract will be. Now this contract says:

Workers get paid 50% of profit.
I get 10% of profit, in addition to wage.
Direct democracy, but I am allowed to keep trade secrets.
The other 40% of profit will be spent according to a budget that we decide upon.
You give me funds to build factory.
I employ you. You work. You don’t work, you are fired. That means, no pay check or food stamp or food.

Now, your thinking:
PAID? This is communism! All hail the Head of State! Bow down or be bowed, or be sent to gulags! We have no money we are moron commies! We need food! Wah, wah, wah, I want to live in the land of the free!

I’ll address you later. So I get 50 workers to jump aboard, and they help me get the funds to build the factory. We start to make our Commie Cola. But here is where there are two ideas –

WOtMoP Communism – and sell it for profit. See the budget above, we decide to make a new Factory. We hire 50 more guys, and they are ‘interns’. They get all the rights of a normal worker, but they cannot vote in a company election, until they have worked here for 6 months. The company constitution prevents us from mistreating them.

I-think-you-need-a-barrel-of-food-and-you-need-half-of-a-barrel Communism – we give it to the community or the ‘commune’. The committee, elected by the workers, thinks that we should get all of our supplies we need to live (like food or whatever), and gives us extra votes for whatever. If someone as an individual does not like his or her supplies, they can trade.

Barter Communism – We decide to trade 2000 6-packs to the local farm in return for assorted food. We give some more 6-packs to the builder in return for building a new lounge for our workers.

Now back to the whining.
Lassiz Faire Capitalism did not work. Why would pure, über communism. Hold stuff to similar lights.

I read the replies to my question, and skimmed over other posts to see if anyone else tried to answer me. I more or less got what I expected.

I'm a bit of an arrogant guy, so instead of comming out and making my arguements I want to try a bit of the Socratic method here.

For those of you who are certain about the free-market's ability to create incentives specifically for encouraging worker productivity and technological innovation ask yourselves the following questions:

1) What does a rise in worker productivity mean? And what will happen if a firm, operating in a competative market, experiences a sudden rise in employee productivity?

2) Why do we have patents and copywrites? (Hint: The answer isn't as simple as to protect intellectual property. While that is true I want you to think a little deeper than that.)

of course it can,but not in a leninist/stalinist way....and surely not in a mc carty definition/propaganda way.(waiting for reply)

Communism does infact work splendidly-in small groups. In a small group, it is extremely easy to regulate and coordinate, and as such everyone works their hardest because if you don't, everyone will die. Communism works especially well in hunter/gatherer type societies, as different people can focus on only one thing that they are specialized at, thus being more efficient. The most successful tribes of Africa, and the Middle East use a system of Communism as it is best for the tribe. Also, corruption is all but not existent in these cases, as any corruption would lead to death.
However, in a larger society, Communism cannot work. Corruption is harder to detect, and it's effect is not as evident. If you don't do your job to your fullest, there will be less ramifications as there are thousands of other doing the exact same job. These problems will grow, and the system will be to large to regulate.

Small scale-Yes
Large scale-No

Capitalism does infact work splendidly-in groups. In a group, it is extremely easy to regulate and coordinate, and as such everyone works their hardest because if you don't, everyone will die. capitalism works especially well in producing/consumming type societies, as different people can focus on only one thing that they are specialized at, thus being more efficient. The most successful tribes of America, and the Europat use a system of Capitalism as it is best for the Nation. Also, corruption is all but existent in these cases, as any Democraty would lead to death.
However, in a larger society, Capitalism cannot work. Corruption is harder to detect, and it's effect is not as evident. If you don't do your job to your fullest, there will be less ramifications as there are thousands of other doing the exact same job. These problems will grow, and the system will be to large to regulate.

Small scale-Yes
Large scale-No

sorry i could not sustain myself here

Communism is the natural order of an ordinary human family (Discuss.)

Taken on a larger scale, such as in a Japanese school (or a strict university), communism also works really well.

It is only that no current systems have implemented communism well enough. Communism is not equal to totalitarianism.

Small scale-Yes
Large scale-No

Intruiging - a similar thing can be said about capitalism: it is very efficient when looking at single companies, but not necessarily when you look at the entire nation. Capitalism creates extremely efficient units - but they are not designed to work together with other units. Communism (probably) creates slightly less efficient units - but they are designed to work together with others. In theory this should make communism more efficient in huge societies - assuming you can maintain the administration and the government is not as stupid to ignore flaws (the Russian 5 year plans anyone?).

I do wonder though.. are there actually people that conside it fair that a manager earns over 400 times more than his employees ?

All that said, I agree with the statement "people do not want to be equal".
Sorry Jesus, we tried - but people just don't want it.

Capitalism is barbaric? Please.

Capitalism recognizes that our posessions, and the results of our labor are our own and it enforces our rights as such. Property is an extension of life on every level: whether you take the time out of your life to build a fence or take the time out of your life to earn a couple of bucks by helping someone out, the concept remains.

Capitalism promotes mutually beneficient exhanges. Communism only endores them in certain, specific areas. Claming that capitalism is bad or "barbaric" because it can be abused is like telling me that alcohol shouldn't exist because it can be abused too. The avenues for abuse and oppression are much more abundant in communism than under capitalism.


How can property be an extension of life? These are dead things you are talking about. Money cant be eaten.
Capitalism is destroying the world as we speak. example: Some stupid sugar companies in usa have managed to ban a certain sweet herb from beeing sold this herb uses no water in the growth process compared too sugar farming. The fact that this herb is not close to as toxic as sugar for our bodies does not matter to these people beacuse the only thing that matters is money and more money.
Capitalism takes you futher away from you fellow man. People dont know their neibours anymore. Nobody helps the beggar. I know...
Peace love and understanding :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Capitalism is destroying the world as we speak. example: Some stupid sugar companies in usa have managed to ban a certain sweet herb from beeing sold this herb uses no water in the growth process compared too sugar farming.
This is the state interfering in the free market and those who are in favour of free markets are as upset about this as you are.

The fact that this herb is not close to as toxic as sugar for our bodies does not matter to these people beacuse the only thing that matters is money and more money.
A government which interferes in the economy makes it profitable for a few powerful people to engage in destructive behaviour such as this. This is part of the reason why I and many others don't want the government to interfere in the economy. The points you are making are against the current system, not the free market.

Capitalism takes you futher away from you fellow man. People dont know their neibours anymore. Nobody helps the beggar. I know...
People used to depend on and help each other, now they just get a weekly check from the bureaucrats. Get rid of the destructive welfare state and private charity and communities will flourish again. It is the anti-market policies of govt that cause this problem.

People seem eager to blame everything on the bogeyman "capitalism", no matter how tenuously the problem is related to security of property rights, the definition of a free market.

I support peoples' freedom to go live in a commune, pool their resources, and live their lives the way they choose - so long as they support my freedom not to live in a commune and live my life as I choose. There is no reason for communes not to exist on the free market. In fact, banning communism goes against the free market principle of being allowed to do what you like with your own property. Communism is not incompatible with the free market. Whether it'll "work" or not depends on the people and on what you mean by "work". I have no respect for those who say everyone should be free and then talk about forcing people into communal life or banning religion.

I really think that the concept, the theoretical version of communism is great. But unfortunally the nature of humans does not make it possible to realise the theoretical version. That's why I think capitalism is the best alternative, BUT only if the rich are willing to contribute to the common welfare; e.g. good social laws etc. ^_^

Intruiging - a similar thing can be said about capitalism: it is very efficient when looking at single companies, but not necessarily when you look at the entire nation. Capitalism creates extremely efficient units - but they are not designed to work together with other units. Communism (probably) creates slightly less efficient units - but they are designed to work together with others. In theory this should make communism more efficient in huge societies - assuming you can maintain the administration and the government is not as stupid to ignore flaws (the Russian 5 year plans anyone?).
A firm must be tuned to work with its suppliers, contractors, customers etc, if it isn't some other firm that is will make cheaper goods or otherwise serve it's customers better and thus take the customers away. The pricing structure of the market also conveys important information on scarcity of goods and consumer demand which would be lost in a socialist economy. This becomes more and more of a problem as the society gets bigger thus the larger the society the more comparitive advantage of free markets.

I do wonder though.. are there actually people that conside it fair that a manager earns over 400 times more than his employees ?
Fair has nothing to do with it. If someone is willing to pay that much for his talents he must be worth it to them, or they are morons. Perhaps the employees should try learning how to do the managers job since it pays so well. They could offer to do it for a mere 200 times their current wages. The high wage is an important signal that THIS job is one in which a talented person can do a lot of good. This is the type of important information I was talking about above. We all benefit that talented people help provide us with cheaper goods rather than some other job just about anyone could do. If you were to prevent them earning so much they might do some other job which would benefit society less.

I really think that the concept, the theoretical version of communism is great. But unfortunally the nature of humans does not make it possible to realise the theoretical version.
Isn't the definition of a bad theory one which doesn't match reality?

I'm not a communist, partly because I'm Australian and communism really wouldn't work too well in Australia, or in fact in most developed societies. That's the point.

This is where Marx got it wrong: his intention was that it would arise in developed countries to distribute prosperity more effectively, yet if we look to China, we see it was actually neccessary to generate prosperity in the first place. The intention was that places like Africa would naturally become communist, and personally I'm really angry that the powers that be decided Angola wasn't allowed to go communist.

Communism could have been the best thing to happen to 'portuguese africa,' long exploited by imperialist powers, by now maybe they could have eradicated AIDS through the provision of affordable medicines and education; they could be prospering off their raw materials exports, particularly petroleum and sugar, whereas currently more than 51% of the population are underemployed since their raw materials are again owned by US corporations who simply have no interests beyond profits headed to NYSE.

Currently there is a Maoist insurgency in Nepal, and it will be interesting to see what the World Republic (US) is going to do about it. They've supported corrupt dictators in the past to stamp out communists.

This however raises another point: the Chinese system of communism recognises the concept of fair pay for fair work, and their economics rewards hard workers ahead of the 'lazy' or 'selfish' ones.

Let's face it though, communism is just another form of government and it doesn't deserve the kind of hysteria which has been attributed to it. Can you imagine the King of Spain stepping out and organising a coalition against the early democrats? "They've already taken France and Britain, they remain a clear and present danger to our way of life!" In fact, socialism is not neccessarily contradictory to democracy: there are at least three different kinds of socialism, and if they were allowed to organise into political parties that contested for office in unions, bureaucracy and political office while remaining loyal to socialist economics, it could have really helped places like Angola, Indonesia, Thailand or the arab states.

What about china, that’s technically still a communist country and that seams to work pretty well.

So what if you trade in your freedom to the government, freedom is only a social constructed created and used by extremists to justify their actions. There is no freedom so long as things like money and time exist and since there not going away any time soon then we should embrace that humans will never be free and so communism could work if people would just realise that LIFE MEANS NOTHING! So who cares if your personal freedoms are traded in? I DON’T!

This is the state interfering in the free market and those who are in favour of free markets are as upset about this as you are.
The "free market" is an abstraction which requires several impossible conditions in order to exist - such as perfect competition, perfectly equal knowledge, perfectly interchangeable goods etc. Simply put, a free market can only exist if you have an infinity of sellers and an infinity of buyers, all buying and selling perfectly identical goods and knowing everything there is to know about those goods.

In real life, you have monopolies, oligopolies, unequal knowledge etc., which allow certain companies to influence the market according to their interests.

A government which interferes in the economy makes it profitable for a few powerful people to engage in destructive behaviour such as this. This is part of the reason why I and many others don't want the government to interfere in the economy.
You mean like in the 19th century? I have two words for you: robber barons. Laissez-faire is not only immoral, it is abysmally stupid, as history (and particularly the Great Depression) has proved.

People used to depend on and help each other, now they just get a weekly check from the bureaucrats. Get rid of the destructive welfare state and private charity and communities will flourish again.
Yeah, communities will flourish again once we have our streets filled with the rotting corpses of men, women and children who died of hunger - and who are left to rot in the street because the government is not allowed to "interfere" by picking them up and burying them.

What about china, that’s technically still a communist country and that seams to work pretty well.

So what if you trade in your freedom to the government, freedom is only a social constructed created and used by extremists to justify their actions. There is no freedom so long as things like money and time exist and since there not going away any time soon then we should embrace that humans will never be free and so communism could work if people would just realise that LIFE MEANS NOTHING! So who cares if your personal freedoms are traded in? I DON’T!

We are all human, and all mankind is equal in the eyes of God. However social everyone is not equal and to treat them so would destroy the viability of society. Centeralised goverment is an abhoration created solely for the use of the power hungry. What is needed is a decentralised goverment run by the people not systems. What is also neeed is a fair society that treats people with the respect THEY DESERVE, what they have earnt not what they
feel is entitled to them. Capatlisim and the free market represent this most strongly. All socialist principles are ill concived and unviable. What a socialist
is doing is screaming at the seasons to stop, or crying becasue the rain wont
stop falling.

We are all human, and all mankind is equal in the eyes of God. However social everyone is not equal and to treat them so would destroy the viability of society. Centeralised goverment is an abhoration created solely for the use of the power hungry. What is needed is a decentralised goverment run by the people not systems. What is also neeed is a fair society that treats people with the respect THEY DESERVE, what they have earnt not what they
feel is entitled to them. Capatlisim and the free market represent this most strongly. All socialist principles are ill concived and unviable. What a socialist
is doing is screaming at the seasons to stop, or crying becasue the rain wont
stop falling.
Non sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow logically from your premises. Try again.

Also, capitalism allows the rich to exploit the poor, and, because of this, the rich get more than they deserve and the poor get less than they deserve.

Non sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow logically from your premises. Try again.

Also, capitalism allows the rich to exploit the poor, and, because of this, the rich get more than they deserve and the poor get less than they deserve.

Please take offence at this:
It is hard to put in to words how much I hate the principles of socialism, therefore I doubt my arguments will be particularly coherent. I don’t care. Listen to this, because this is what socialism means to me.
According to socialist principle if I was single it would be ok for me to have your spouse whenever I wanted, because I did not have one. I know a person is not property but for me its the same damm principle. Socialism is a retarded unfair set of ideals.

Please take offence at this
Sorry, I can't. It's too damn funny. :lol:

You think its funny because you cant argue with the statment, because its probably shown your ideals up to be complete crap.

Short essay snippet on communism from GameFAQs.
...
Most people (and by most people, what we really mean is Americans) tend to have a distorted view of what communism really is. Firstly, communism is primarily a term in economics. When applied to the state economy, communism is a form of state control over production - a position which, in the past, has led to abuse of authority. Communist governments have also historically been political, financial and military competitors of the dominantly capitalist west. This has launched a large amount of propaganda efforts against communism, portraying it as inherently or morally wrong and inhumane, which is not necessarily the case.

When applied outside of economic principles, the word refers to a simple, altruistic philosophical principle usually stated as a two-fold prescription:

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

The above principle has two parts. The first is that the individual has a responsibility to the commune, and the second is that the commune has a responsibility to the individual, and that the responsibility is proportional both to the need and ability of the individual.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is advocated by most intellectual restriction advocates. In economic terms, the individual is responsible for acquiring the means of production, unregulated. Outside of economics, capitalism is the philosophy that the individual should be allowed to fend for themselves through any method or means. More emphasis is placed on the individual than on social responsibility. Essentially, capitalism is an economic implementation of anarchy - the lack of restraint or control of the individual. This says something about the validity of certain anarchistic (or at least antiestablishmentarianist) stands on capitalistic basis - capitalism, after all, is the confidence that the environment will stabilize itself.

Capitalism is often placed as the philosophical polar opposite of Communism. But is it really? In Capitalism, ultimate emphasis is on the individual. A true polar opposite would be the complete decentralization of the individual as the point of focus, that is, complete emphasis on the society as a whole. This kind of philosophy has been known by many names, invariably being altruism or martyrdom, but is most popularly known as patriotism. Like Capitalism and Communism, we will be using Patriotism outside of the domain of economics and politics to refer to how much emphasis is placed on the individual.

In Patriotism we have the complete decentralization of the individual, and the utter centralization of the cause, be it the country, society, justice or religion. Patriotism is directly opposed to capitalism - which glorifies individuality. Communism, which at the same time focuses on individual and community responsibility, is the middle-ground, and strikes a balance between the two. It is only in the method and intensity of application (which is left to personal discretion), that communism may be disadvantageous, or wrongly applied.
...

essentially, a government that implements proportional or progressive taxation, and any form of public service is in effect implementing at least a weak form of communism. That includes capitalistic nations. Thus communism works.

How far we will take this communism is another matter. A totatalitarian state is communist, yes, but not all communists are totalitarian. Families, by nature, are communist. As are the internal structure of all so-called capitalistic companies (even leaning towards company-oriented patriotism!) is also communist: employees are expected to give to the company, and the company benefits the employees as according to their position/ability/need.

I think a few important clarifications are at hand here.
(1) Whether the topic is about communism or totalitarianism
(2) Whether or not totalitarianism will work as an ideal
(3) Whether or not communism will work as an ideal

"Will communism ever work?"
Yes, I think it will. Not the "communism" of the Soviet Union, but I believe that a democratic and classless society, where the means of production are owned by the people will eventually replace the capitalism of today.

"But it is against Human Nature!!!"
I do not think it is "against human nature". Obviously, such a system would need mechanisms to ensure it's own continued existence. I think the greatest threat would be the creation of a "red bureaucracy" with distinct class interests opposed to the interests of the people (like the nomenclature of the Soviet Union). One way to ensure that this never happens could be to institute a more direct form of democracy. If the leaders did'nt do their job right, we could just elect new leaders who were up to the task. Another way could be to regulate the wages of full time politicians, so that they never could earn more than the average worker.

"If I lived in a communist society, I would work as little as possible, because I would still get paid as much as everybody else"
Individuals who tries to do this would probably get in trouble with their colleagues pretty soon. The basic idea is to divide work and pay pretty equally, right? Unemployment is a purely capitalist problem connected with market-economy, and wouldn't be a problem under communism. Every healthy, adult member of society would have to do their equal share of the dirty-work.

"Will communism ever work?"
Yes, I think it will. Not the "communism" of the Soviet Union, but I believe that a democratic and classless society, where the means of production are owned by the people will eventually replace the capitalism of today.

Since when have I thought of myself as 'the people.' What constitutes 'the people.' We are individuals with our own interests, I do not care what 'the people want' and I do not care 'what the people need.' The people I care about are the ones close to me.

In your own respected opinion, will communism ever work? Why do you think like that? If not, then why not, and if so then why will it work? Just trying to see where everyone stands on this issue. Three well thought out ideas about the pro's and cons would be good also.

IMHO it will never work.

The reasoning is rather simple. The general pattern for reaching a communist state, historically, has been through "interim" use of totalitarianism. The problem, is this interim state results in the re-creation of the similar class structures as before. Just, in this case, the governing authority becomes the "exploiters" making the workers slaves to the system.

I do think the "idea" is laudable. Just that there is no reliable way to impliment the system. The result of the Manifesto, while it's ultimate goal to create a "communist" state, actually creates a Totalitarian Socialist state.

Communism only works in theory. For a economy to be efficient the competition of a free market has to be present to provide a large amount of good quality goods and services at cheap prices. In a planned economy this is not present and this will result not just in inefficiency of the economy but also a lower standard of living for the general population. Also the natural factors found in man e.g. greediness would ensure that there would surely be some corrupt official somewhere in the communist government sucking up the nation's money for himself - therefore communism can only work in theory because it just doesn't work in reality with humans

The "free market" is an abstraction which requires several impossible conditions in order to exist - such as perfect competition, perfectly equal knowledge, perfectly interchangeable goods etc. Simply put, a free market can only exist if you have an infinity of sellers and an infinity of buyers, all buying and selling perfectly identical goods and knowing everything there is to know about those goods.
These are approximations economists use to describe the free market (and I agree, they don't always apply, even approximately), not it's definitng qualities. The defining quality is strong property rights, which can exist, at least to a degree.

In real life, you have monopolies, oligopolies, unequal knowledge etc., which allow certain companies to influence the market according to their interests.
Sure. But alternative institutions also suffer monopolies, oligopolies, unequal knowledge and corruption. Check out public choice economics, the economics of democracy, often called "polititcs without the romance". These problems are far worse in democracy than in a free market, and worse in dictatorships than in democracies. Lets judge all the althernatives under the same unfavourable conditions, just to be fair.

You mean like in the 19th century? I have two words for you: robber barons. Laissez-faire is not only immoral, it is abysmally stupid, as history (and particularly the Great Depression) has proved.

What about the robber baron capitalists who profit through and by the state? Or the robber barons who ruled the USSR? Let's again judge all the alternatives under the same conditions.

Incidently, the Great Depression was caused by govt interference, not the free market.

Yeah, communities will flourish again once we have our streets filled with the rotting corpses of men, women and children who died of hunger - and who are left to rot in the street because the government is not allowed to "interfere" by picking them up and burying them.
Perhaps you will stand by and let children die of hunger without big brother forcing you to do something, but most people won't. You must have a very low opinion of your fellow man. If people didn't want to help each other why would they even vote for a welfare state? The opposition to abolishing the welfare state only proves that it is unnecessary.

There's a fine line, but basically in communism there is no government because there doesn't need to be one and in anarchy there just isn't one

Actually there is the dictatorship of there procareate (spelling???) according to Marx who founded the idea of Communism. The procareate, which is marxs term for the working class who is constatly abused and taken advantage of by the rich. The abused poor and most of the middle class will uprise and overthrow the rich, this uprising will put the dictatorship of the procareate in power. They would institute communism (which I call Marxism, because right winged christian assholes call me unpatriotic for believing in communism), an end the cycle of rich-poor, the users and the used. But back to the point, eventually this dictaroship of the people would slowly fade into a true democracy where everyone would come together and agree what is the best for the community as a whole and go in that direction. So there is government in Communism but ther is not stupid delegates or politicans, the people are educated and are wise enought to do what is bestfor the community even if it is not the best for themself, that is why there is absolute peace and prosperity in communism and with out a really big purging of the totaly selfish popultation it will never happen, ever.

Since when have I thought of myself as 'the people.' What constitutes 'the people.' We are individuals with our own interests, I do not care what 'the people want' and I do not care 'what the people need.' The people I care about are the ones close to me.

The reason why communism becomes Stalinism. Selfishness is evil you bad boy.

Perhaps you will stand by and let children die of hunger without big brother forcing you to do something, but most people won't.
Most people can't really make much of a difference. Those who can make a difference - the rich - will stand by and let children die of hunger, as they have done for centuries before the creation of the welfare state.

If people didn't want to help each other why would they even vote for a welfare state? The opposition to abolishing the welfare state only proves that it is unnecessary.
The people most able to help their fellow man - the rich - are the least willing to do it. The middle class donates more money to charity, as a fraction of its total income, than the upper class. The rich never voted for the welfare state, and they are doing everything in their power to destroy it.

The argument goes both ways, you see: If the rich would donate more money to charity if taxes were lower, then why do they object to high taxes? They wouldn't keep that money anyway, right? Or would they? All evidence shows that they would keep that money for themselves, and so there would be less money available to help the poor.

After all, charity has existed since the dawn of human civilization. The rich always had the option to donate money to the poor. But they rarely ever did. It wasn't until the 20th century that death by starvation was finally abolished in the developed countries - thanks to the welfare state.

The rich have had 5000 years to prove their "benevolence". After 5000 years of misery, poverty and hunger, it's safe to say that they failed the test.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4574991.stm
This shows what happens when people become reliant on the state. The UK is imploding as the underclass grows while the middle class chooses to leave to avoid stupidly high tax rates. It your damm life, its not up to the state to give it to you or take it away, yes that is selfish but bringing yourself up in the world makes society work.

To begin with, Communism must be distinguished from Socialism, and It must also be known what form of Socialism one is discussing, Lenninism, Stalinism, Scientific Socialism (Marxian), Soviet, Chinese, Scandavian, or European. Since, for the sake of Argument it will be assumed that one is discussing pure Marxian socialism and pure marxian communism neither exist in the world today, nor have they ever existed. Also, one needs to avoid ethnocentrism. Socialism has been shown to function successfuly on large scale in Sweden, but this is not a pure marxian form of the thing, instead it is a cultural condition arising from the Viking democratic tradition, wherein the idea of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need was a part of life. In a sense this is exactly what Marx suggested, that such an implementation of Socialism, and its child, Communism needs to be accompanied by educational efforts by the state to enforce the values of Socialism. This, in a country such as the United States, does not exist, instead the current, generation -X, generation -Y, generation -d collectively refered to by the term "Me generation" (Not Windows Me) but the individual, in short the value of love thy neighbour is degraded and replaced by the principle of the good of the one outweighs the good of the many. For socialism to take hold that trend would need to be reversed. That is not all, however some 50 years ago at a conference called Breton Woods, which was chaired by John Meynard Keynes, author of many "New Deal" programs mechanisms were put in place to obstruct these actions, as Keynes put it "an innoculation against socialism". Breton Woods created the WTO, IMF, and World Bank, incidentally. These institutions would need to be abolished in order to bring about the revolution of Marx, in addition to the educational programs. Of course up to now we have ignored the fundamental difference in Marx and Smith, the Value theory of economics which states every object has inherent value, work by humans adds to that value, work by machines detracts from that value (Marx, Das Kapital,1848). Capitalism says that the value of an object is determined by how much someone is willing to pay for the object, which has no value in and of itself. Before I turn this into a term paper, I will offer the following: Can communism work, yes but a large amount of change needs to happen first or communism will be kept in small pockets Communes, Suggested Readings : General theory of Money, John Meynard Keynes; Das Kapital, Karl Marx; Scientific Socialism, V.I. Lenin

Most people can't really make much of a difference. Those who can make a difference - the rich - will stand by and let children die of hunger, as they have done for centuries before the creation of the welfare state.

Wow, what a sad and pathetic view of humanity. No wonder you are looking to make the government into a parental figure, since you obviously feel so inept and helpless. Myself, I have the courage, the ability, and the will to make a difference, and I know many others who feel the same way. Just because you are too scared or weak to do anything doesn't mean we're all so wussy.


The people most able to help their fellow man - the rich - are the least willing to do it.

Oh, so the rich are automatically the most able to help their fellow man? Interesting theory. Just because the rich may have more income at their disposal doesn't mean they are best able to help their fellows. Quit passing the buck and expecting other people to take care of problems. You are as able to help as anybody else.


The middle class donates more money to charity, as a fraction of its total income, than the upper class. The rich never voted for the welfare state, and they are doing everything in their power to destroy it.

Nice generalization. Now back it up with facts, please.


The argument goes both ways, you see: If the rich would donate more money to charity if taxes were lower, then why do they object to high taxes? They wouldn't keep that money anyway, right? Or would they?

I'm not rich, but I can answer that when it comes to my own money. I don't mind giving tons of income to charities and causes that I support, but I very much mind having huge portions of my income taxed to support things I don't believe in. I want to choose where the fruits of my labor go, and I don't need somebody else to tell me what is important. I am an adult, I earn my money, and I think I have the right to choose who gets most of it. I don't mind paying some taxes to support things I actually use (emergency services, roads, necessary government agencies, public schools, etc), but there are plenty of other things my tax dollars are wasted on.


All evidence shows that they would keep that money for themselves, and so there would be less money available to help the poor.

All evidence? Really? Okay, then you should have no trouble at all presenting all that evidence, and proving that there is NO evidence that ANY rich person would give more money to charity if their taxes were lowered. Remember, YOU MADE THE ABSOLUTE CLAIM. So now put up or shut up.


After all, charity has existed since the dawn of human civilization. The rich always had the option to donate money to the poor. But they rarely ever did. It wasn't until the 20th century that death by starvation was finally abolished in the developed countries - thanks to the welfare state.

Yet another interesting theory. Please support it with historical citations. Also, please explain the advent of enormous charity, philanthropy, and support of underprivaledged classes by many wealthy members of the Roman empire, many nobles during the Enlightenment, and many wealthy landowners during early American history (just to start).


The rich have had 5000 years to prove their "benevolence". After 5000 years of misery, poverty and hunger, it's safe to say that they failed the test.
If by "safe to say" you mean "easy to say because I'm hoping nobody around here actually reads history," then maybe you are right. If by "safe to say" you mean "far easier than actually having to resort to things like fact or accuracy," then your point is well made. If by "safe to say" you mean "really stupid to say because it is a blatantly untrue generalization that seeks to foist all responsibility onto a specific minority of other humans so that the rest of us can sit around bitching," then bravo.

Most people can't really make much of a difference. Those who can make a difference - the rich - will stand by and let children die of hunger, as they have done for centuries before the creation of the welfare state.

The people most able to help their fellow man - the rich - are the least willing to do it. The middle class donates more money to charity, as a fraction of its total income, than the upper class. The rich never voted for the welfare state, and they are doing everything in their power to destroy it.
The US was historically, and still is, more charitable than other less free market countries, even in it's current non-free market state. Studies have show a correllation between economic freedom and charitable giving, see e.g. the sociologist Charles Murray's work.

The argument goes both ways, you see: If the rich would donate more money to charity if taxes were lower, then why do they object to high taxes? They wouldn't keep that money anyway, right? Or would they? All evidence shows that they would keep that money for themselves, and so there would be less money available to help the poor.
They'd help people better by employing them than by indiscriminate charity. Also, what evidence do you speak off? Possibly not the vast sums donated to charity by the likes of Bill Gates and Nobel. The rich would rather spend their money as they please, including the particular charities they like, rather than, say, military misadventuring or subsidising their competitiors.

After all, charity has existed since the dawn of human civilization. The rich always had the option to donate money to the poor. But they rarely ever did. It wasn't until the 20th century that death by starvation was finally abolished in the developed countries - thanks to the welfare state.

The rich have had 5000 years to prove their "benevolence". After 5000 years of misery, poverty and hunger, it's safe to say that they failed the test.
Up until a couple of centuries ago the rich were the "nobles" who profited from taxation. Now the rich are those who satisfy the desires of consumers. Let's not confuse those who aquired wealth by theft from those who got it by convincing people to give them it by doing something in return. So much for 5000 years of history. During the 19th century the population of those countries with economic freedom rose steeply since those who would previously had DIED survived due to the new prosperity. Things were getting better before the welfare state and continued to get better after it was created. The welfare state was not the cause of the improvement, technological and economic development was.

To prove my point I'll again refer to the work of Charles Murray. He invented the "trendline test" in which you take any indicator of welfare and remove the dates from it. He challanges you to them point to where relevant welfare legislation was introduced. I promise you it is impossible to guess, because the trends don't change. If there was no welfare state today things would not be worse. If there had been a welfare state in previous centuries things would not have been better. (In fact there often were official welfare provisions though nothing as extensive as the modern system)

[QUOTE=Rusiennne]In your own respected opinion, will communism ever work? Why do you think like that?QUOTE]
Communism will never work because sharing is completely against human nature. Also, eventually someone will get bored, rediscover capitalism, get a following, and seperate into a new capitalist paradise.

Sure, but only in as a small village or something like that.

I don´t think it would work as a whole country.

not here :fluffle:

This forum has rehashed this arguement so many times, that it isn't even funny. It always ends in the same result, with three or four main debaters, firing away at each other for days on end. No one gets their mind changed, no points are definitely proven. That's how it always is.

There we go, I'm done ranting.

In your own respected opinion, will communism ever work? Why do you think like that? If not, then why not, and if so then why will it work? Just trying to see where everyone stands on this issue. Three well thought out ideas about the pro's and cons would be good also.

No. You have to force people to follow it - and it's only as good as the enforcement, which usually ends up being draconian.

Speaking as someone whose relatives were forced to die for the crime of being schoolteachers, and who were bound with barbed wire and beaten to death by Communists, I find the whole concept of Communism repellent.

You can't force or educate everyone to be completely unselfish, altruistic beings who are willing to sacrifice everything for the Party.

Comunism will NEVER work...Comunism is based on karl marx theorys, which were developed in the 19th century, due to the bad life conditions of the workers back then, after the Industrial revolution...Mainly i dont agree with marx theorys, cause simply, they'd give all the power to uncult and with no knowledge people(that's what's written THOUGH that never happens, and power allways goes to leaders)...It's the high classes who rule countrys, not low ones...Marx also did one thing wrong...he tried to finish with Rich people, instead finishing with poverty...

19th Century Theorys cant work in the 20th or 21th century, where, mentality, facts, proofs and experience are different..
...

I'd like to add i'm only in the 8th grade, and what i know, i learn from my amasing history teacher..Oh and sorry for any typos, i'm portuguese...

You could always have a communism-like system in which there is no government and everyone acts based on the actions of the people around them.

thats anarchy buddy you should do some reading into this subject

Communism is obsolete.

There are two ways in which Communism takes hold:

1. Through a militaristic revolution

In this situation the society becomes dependent on a centralised government for safety, leadership, and resources. When the military revolution has ended the society is already subjegated to the will of an authoritarian idealogical government.

2. Through a altruistic social revolution:

As this altruistic movement occurs the wills of the public will be represented through a capitalistic system through charity, and no socialistic or communistic movement is needed.

Any method of bringing communism to society, other than #2, will require the suppression of opponents and human rights violations. When the public is willing to subject themselves to government in this way and allows other members of society to be subjegated, they give up their freedom as well.

Well it seems that no one wanted to answer my questions. Fair enough, I suppose defending misconceptions about incentives isn't as interesting as participating in a value-laden debate on charity.

So does free-market provide incentives in general? Sure, that's how the system is supposed to work. Economic actors are driven by incentives into performing economic tasks. However, the specific incentives that most are concerned with here, worker productivity and innovation, aren't provided by the free-market. In fact, the market, left to it's own devices and assuming everyone knows what is really going on, would severly limit worker productivity and non-firm specific innovation. How is this so? Well that's what my questions were about.

1) When we talk aboug lazy people not doing their jobs becasue they don't have to do them well, we are talking about worker productivity (in that case a lack of it). In free-market capitalism, the reasoning goes, workers can be given raises or promotions if they work hard, and fired if they are lazy. But what happens when all workers, competing for these incentives, raise the firm's level of productivity? In a free-market a firm can sell as much as products as it can without affecting the price, so we would think the firm would just sell the extra products it makes. Except, profits are usually smaller per unit than labor costs. This means that a firm will maximize profits by cutting costs, i.e. cutting away the excess labor. This means that workers can work too hard for their own good. Workers who are very productive get laid off. The incentive to work hard is only true when you are the only person in your firm working hard, or the firm is making more profit per unit than the labor costs per unit.

2) Firm-specific innovation is what makes firms efficient, it's things like taking advantage of specialization and improving the organizational structure of the firm. However, that's not what people are really concerned about when they talk about innovation. No one cares if Sally Secretary reduces paperwork for Bob Boss. When we talk about innovation we mean technological innovation that affects whole sectors, if not the whole economy. But this kind of innovation requires the commitment of resources in research and development. This investment isn't guaranteed, and it is very likely that in a free-market competing firms will reverse-engineer the new technology thereby capturing it's advantages without paying the costs. This means there is no incentive for firm's to be innovative. That is why we have patents and copywrites. It isn't only about protecting intellectual property, it is about protecting investments by granting temporary monopoly rights to regain that which was initially invested.

communism cannot and will not ever work in a modern world.
history shows that any form of government that does not do the will of the people will always fail:
dictatorships
monarchy
republics
democracy
religious empires
communism

and again it all comes down to one simple reason they all have failed throughout history and that is eventually each system reaches a state of absolute power and when the masses feel oppressed or alienated they will always revolt or bring about a change in government.
any countries government is a living evolving system but it cannot ever change as fast as the demands of the general population so therefore will ultimately fail.

if this were not true then a utopia would have long existed on this planet and would have been a model for all countries to follow but history has shown us that every governmental system is just a variation of some other past form with sometimes improvements upon the previous but still not a perfect form.

we need a system that while it in itself wont be perfect either but a better system would be one that gives people a very fair and accurate say in its government and ways to control the leaders we elect would be shorter terms of power, making all aspects of our elected leaders decisions available for public scrutiny and judgement and communism does not allow that while democracy does on some very small and basic levels which is why it endures.

theres only 2 ways any government can do just that which is govern a mass population which is to oppress them with total and overwhelming power of absolution (communism, dictatorships) or to appease the people into a state of translucent complacency (democracy, republics).

the first group knows they have no rights and think they are all equal and the second group think they have rights and they too are also equal because of that but the real truth is not everyone is equal and you cannot make everyone feel they truly are so that cannot be easily dealt with but for citizens rights that can be controlled by government or ideally less control through better controls.

communism was born from marxism and it was a desperate attempt at anarchy which in some models and theories it could work but only in a ancient world where the populations were small and travel was limited therefore resources would sustain a closed system.

communism is a vacuum and a closed system in this modern world of boycots, blockades and embargoes as well as multinational unified governing bodies such as NATO and the UN in light of that then any country that does not participate will suffer economic repurcussions and that will cause economic collapse.
in this modern world of world trade, technology sharing and collabortions in business it is very important for the governemnts to feel they have similiar interests and concerns to cunduct in those affairs.
china is one of the largest communist nations left and if it were not for their large manufacturing and trade agreements with the world it would be a country that due to its population size alone would collapse since they dont have enough farmland and crop production to support their own people just as russia did not and its important to have trade with other countries to sustain ones self.
with the cold war and shrinking commuist supporters around the world russia was doomed for a collapse as it was quickly bankrupting itself trying to stay modern enough but without a healthy flow of income in and out of the country as well as a motivational inspirer for free will and developement then that stiffles peoples free will to invent, dream and bring forth new and emerging technology which unlike in the free world everyone knows with a good lan, eduction or idea then you can always go to the highest bidder and become the next bill gates and have enough money to buy entire nations.
sorry i just used B.G. as an example but it motivators like that that drive technology forward and why one by one communist nations have opened their doors and policies to join the rest of the world.

not that capitalism is right or better but it is a sytem that can grow as fast or with the population because it is the population.

i hope this makes some kind of sense and the real message or lesson to learn from history is that a government can be as free as possible within reason and support capitalism also within reason but have better and stronger socialistic views and that would be a government that truly serves the people but we have yet to see a government like that in this world.

i am an american and a very patriotic one but being patriotic doesnt mean blindly following the government with no regards to right or wrong because that would make me nothing more than a complete idiot.
the constitution was a great document before it was ratified and shot full of holes by every special interest group that came along because we shifted from a whats good for the people as in EVERYBODY to a few who said i dont care about that i just want whats good for ME!
nobody is special interest and deserves special needs and rights in any country and our constitution is not perfect but if does lay the ground work and can be a model for a better system but in closing there is not or never has been a perfect or truly great system of government and anyone who says or thinks there has been i will tell you is an uneducated idiot who doesnt know history or politics.
i am not unamerican and its not a republican, democrat, socialist, libertarian or anyone else that makes america great but rather its our citizens from all over the world who brought their knowledge and skills with them to build something great and thats what the world needs.
thats what the world needs more business with each other to build a better place for everyone.

without native americans none of our founding fathers would be here to found anything so remember that on thanksgiving and without asians we wouldnt have our railroads that made us a coast to coast nation and without hispanics we wouldnt have our western culture of ranching and cattle raising and horses, without later european immigrants we wouldnt have our industrial revolution and its all those progressive steps from many different people learning from each other and working together in a country that allowed that to happen that our country was built.

hopefully that can happen all over the world without all the mistakes and wrongs that have happened here in the USA to get to the place we are at today.

1) When we talk aboug lazy people not doing their jobs becasue they don't have to do them well, we are talking about worker productivity (in that case a lack of it). In free-market capitalism, the reasoning goes, workers can be given raises or promotions if they work hard, and fired if they are lazy. But what happens when all workers, competing for these incentives, raise the firm's level of productivity? In a free-market a firm can sell as much as products as it can without affecting the price, so we would think the firm would just sell the extra products it makes.

It appears that you have no understanding of price determination, supply and demand, and marginal utility. Very simply, the more products that enter the market, the lower the demand for the individual good, the lower the price of the individual good. So in a round about way, by workers being more productive they are helping to guarantee that the company continues to receive sufficient revenue which in turn translates into continued wages, all the while lowering the prices of the goods that they will be purchasing at the store. More productive workers = higher standard of living.


Except, profits are usually smaller per unit than labor costs. This means that a firm will maximize profits by cutting costs, i.e. cutting away the excess labor. This means that workers can work too hard for their own good. Workers who are very productive get laid off. The incentive to work hard is only true when you are the only person in your firm working hard, or the firm is making more profit per unit than the labor costs per unit.

You seem to be under the impression that workers work hard or they don't work hard. All workers provide a varying level of utility, and employers that offer fair compensation for those workers will benefit from added productivity. While the actual benefit to people may be sticky (slow to react) due to the fallibility of workers and employers, the benefits will show in the long run.

I don't know what you are getting at with the comparison of profits and labor cost. It is unfeasible to think that any company could operate with profits that are greater than their labor cost. At best, I could only assume that total profit, even for the most profitable companies, would not exceed 1/10 of total wages.

2) Firm-specific innovation is what makes firms efficient, it's things like taking advantage of specialization and improving the organizational structure of the firm. However, that's not what people are really concerned about when they talk about innovation. No one cares if Sally Secretary reduces paperwork for Bob Boss.

Bob Boss cares, and if Sally Secretary causes Bob Boss to perform less efficiently, either Bob Boss gets fired for being inefficient, or Bob Boss gets wise and fires Sally Secretary.

When we talk about innovation we mean technological innovation that affects whole sectors, if not the whole economy. But this kind of innovation requires the commitment of resources in research and development. This investment isn't guaranteed, and it is very likely that in a free-market competing firms will reverse-engineer the new technology thereby capturing it's advantages without paying the costs. This means there is no incentive for firm's to be innovative. That is why we have patents and copywrites. It isn't only about protecting intellectual property, it is about protecting investments by granting temporary monopoly rights to regain that which was initially invested.

This whole part doesn't even make sense. You must be saying that pharmeceutical, military, and computing companies do not stand to make a profit from extensive research and development. I think that anyone over the age of 12, who doesn't live under a rock would see that you are wrong.

No it never will, gread is the best motivation, that way your work pays off for you, not for the lazy guy in the next cubicle over.

Very simply, the more products that enter the market, the lower the demand for the individual good, the lower the price of the individual good.

In aggregate it is true that the more goods that enter the market, the lower the prices for those goods. However, this is not becase of lower demand (thinking about it graphically, a shift in the supply curve will not shift the demand curve, there is a differnace between movement along a curve and the movement of the curve as a whole). But anyway, that doesn't really refute my arguement, all I am assuming to set up my agruement is that an individual firm cannot affect the price of a good no matter how much it produces. This is always true in a free-market.

So in a round about way, by workers being more productive they are helping to guarantee that the company continues to receive sufficient revenue which in turn translates into continued wages, all the while lowering the prices of the goods that they will be purchasing at the store. More productive workers = higher standard of living.

First if, as in the example I set up, only one firm sells more goods then the price will not go down (see above). Second, you are ignoring my agruement for the sake of getting basic economics incorrect. The firm will not take advantage of added reveune, instead it will take advantage of increased productivity and cut labor costs because it can't affect the price and because profit per unit is lower than labor costs per unit.

Labor works harder >>> Less labor can make the same amount of goods as before >>> Firm releases excess labor.

You seem to be under the impression that workers work hard or they don't work hard. All workers provide a varying level of utility, and employers that offer fair compensation for those workers will benefit from added productivity. While the actual benefit to people may be sticky (slow to react) due to the fallibility of workers and employers, the benefits will show in the long run.

Firms will indeed benefit from worker productivity, I did not write anything to the contrary. When you are talking about "benefits" do you mean to consumers? Society as a whole? I don't care about that, it is not my arguement.

Let me make this simple for you. When workers compete for imagined incentives, they end up raising their total level of productivity to the point where firms do not need them all anymore. Therefore, firm's will release excess labor. Therefore, worker's rewards for harder work is being laid off. The incentives are imagined.

I don't know what you are getting at with the comparison of profits and labor cost. It is unfeasible to think that any company could operate with profits that are greater than their labor cost. At best, I could only assume that total profit, even for the most profitable companies, would not exceed 1/10 of total wages.

Ok, fine, something we can agree on. I'll try to make this one simple for you to. I'm only explaing to those that might not already know that firms' profit per unit has to be smaller than its labor cost per unit, with the exception of special cases. This is important to know because there is more profit for firms in cutting labor costs, i.e. firing people, than selling more units.


This whole part doesn't even make sense. You must be saying that pharmeceutical, military, and computing companies do not stand to make a profit from extensive research and development. I think that anyone over the age of 12, who doesn't live under a rock would see that you are wrong.

Alright, one more basic concept I have to explain. Patents and copywrites are temporary rights to monopoly. Monopoly is a non-competative market. Free-markets would not have patents and copywrites because they invite monopoly into the system. Why do we issue them? Because without monopoly rights, firms cannot regain their investment in research and development.

So, to recap:

The free-market creates disincentives for labor to work harder. The free-market creates disincentives for firm's to innovate outside of firm-specific advancements.

The "missing" incentives in communism do not exist in free-market capitalism, rather, in one case, they are created by the government subverting the free-market nature of the system via patents and copywrites.

communism is impossible. It simply cannot work for long.
People will not be satisfied with their "need", and will not stop "wanting". They will do what they can to increase their share, by increasing what the government decides is their "need". Example: having more babies. Why stop with X children if it is the communities responsibility to take care of them? They will also find that they should do what they can to reduce their "ability" because doing the opposite will simply result in having to do more work. As a result, they will do the bare minimum that they are forced to do. No one will work very hard, because they will not benefit themselves as a result. No one will want to restrain their consumption, because it will all be paid for out of a common fund that no one really owns or is responsible for. Not getting what they want, they will lose faith in the system and blame others for their misfortunes. They will work less, only as much as they are forced to, and resent doing so-because they are unsatisfied with their standard of living. No one will aspire to be anything more than a day-laborer or other menial job, because the increased workload of a more difficult or intelligent job doesnt pay any better.
Morally, each person will resent and hate everyone else, because they know whose money pays that person. Someone gets sick? that person's share increases at everyone's expense. Maybe if they are lucky, someone will just kill the sick person so they dont have to worry about it. Someone else has a baby? People will resent paying for it, but also make sure THEY benefit next time. Or the government steps in and sets a limit, or even mandates abortion, such as in China.

Theory you say? Dont impose your theories upon others. What I said above isnt theory either, it actually has happened already.
Communism has been tried before, and it always leaves things worse off than it found them. Capitalism, on the other hand, has resulted in a society where people are considered "in poverty" if they can afford their needs, but only a handful of "luxuries"
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/poaverty.htm
"Pure" Marxism is a myth. Sure you can do exactly the right causes to generate it, but the effects are exactly the opposite of what is expected by marxists.
Communism/Socialism/Marxism not only dont work, they are like a poison that weakens a whole nation. And the "purer" this poison is, the faster the society is destroyed.

In aggregate it is true that the more goods that enter the market, the lower the prices for those goods. However, this is not becase of lower demand (thinking about it graphically, a shift in the supply curve will not shift the demand curve, there is a differnace between movement along a curve and the movement of the curve as a whole).
I agree. What he meant was "quantity demanded", but an increase in supply causes an increase in quantity demanded, along with quantity supplied.


First if, as in the example I set up, only one firm sells more goods then the price will not go down (see above). Second, you are ignoring my agruement for the sake of getting basic economics incorrect. The firm will not take advantage of added reveune, instead it will take advantage of increased productivity and cut labor costs because it can't affect the price and because profit per unit is lower than labor costs per unit.

Labor works harder >>> Less labor can make the same amount of goods as before >>> Firm releases excess labor.

On the contrary, an increase in the productivity of labor makes the labor a "better deal" for the business. As a result, the demand for labor increases, and the average wage increases, along with employment.


Let me make this simple for you. When workers compete for imagined incentives, they end up raising their total level of productivity to the point where firms do not need them all anymore. Therefore, firm's will release excess labor. Therefore, worker's rewards for harder work is being laid off. The incentives are imagined.

All of a sudden, I get more for my money. So I respond by not taking advantage of this? Explain how this makes any sort of sense...

Ok, fine, something we can agree on. I'll try to make this one simple for you to. I'm only explaing to those that might not already know that firms' profit per unit has to be smaller than its labor cost per unit, with the exception of special cases. This is important to know because there is more profit for firms in cutting labor costs, i.e. firing people, than selling more units.

A firms profits come out of reducing costs. This is because increasing price results in less sold, always. Therefore if a firm can reduce the cost of any inputs, the profit will always increase. But firing people results in decreased revenue along with decreased costs. This is often counter-productive.

Alright, one more basic concept I have to explain. Patents and copywrites are temporary rights to monopoly. Monopoly is a non-competative market. Free-markets would not have patents and copywrites because they invite monopoly into the system. Why do we issue them? Because without monopoly rights, firms cannot regain their investment in research and development.

Patents and copyrights grant property ownership to those that deserve them. This does allow a techological monopoly. Property rights are completely compatible with free market capitalism. And this is no different. Property rights are non-existent under communism, therefore patents and copyrights are not used.

So, to recap:

The free-market creates disincentives for labor to work harder. The free-market creates disincentives for firm's to innovate outside of firm-specific advancements.

The "missing" incentives in communism do not exist in free-market capitalism, rather, in one case, they are created by the government subverting the free-market nature of the system via patents and copywrites.

The free market provides labor with better wages when they work harder, otherwise they lose their jobs or get lower wages. In capitalism, workers are free to leave their jobs and employers are free to fire them. If the workers are underpaid, they can quit. If they are overpaid, they will be fired. Simple as that. Communism doesnt allow these checks and balances.
The missing incentives of communism, that higher productivity doesnt lead to better lifestyles, has historically been demonstrated in the most capitalist countries.

Communism in its true form cannot work.

Produce according to your capacity and recieve according to your needs? Well what about your wants? What happens, even if you work your hardest, the nation's gross capacity does not fulfill everybody's needs? You'll constantly be living in Jealousy of other richer nations, in which the rich are way richer than you, and the poor are still richer than you.

And then there is the human nature, that people with power are often corrupt, and that if most people knew they were getting the same regardless, they just wouldn't work at all.

Communism goes against the very nature of life, nature dictates that teh strong survives whilst the weak perishes, the strong and the weak are treated equally. Its unfair on a base level, why should a doctor who saves lives be paid the same as say unskilled labour which is readily available in great amounts? Thats what happened in China in the early days, if skilled professions get worse treatment than unskilled profession, and smarter harder working people got the first pick of jobs, what will the result be? Simple, the smart people pick jobs which requires the least work (some government job) whilst the lazy people are not capable of working in skilled professions but still grow jealous of those with the ability to. Result? Cultural Revolution, a nation stopped dead in its tracks for decades, millions died of starvation, production at a constant negative, smart people persecuted and imprisoned, lazy people sit around on their assess all day persecuting hard working people. It just doesn't work.

However, a compromised form of communism, such as the one china has now, where free trade and private ownership is encouraged, works. Its just like communism without the sharing! Translation: Corrupt Capitalist Dictatorship. Meh, it still works better than any type of socialist government ever will.

Honestly, China has so much potential, its so saddening to see it wasted by an inefficient form of government.

Survival of the fittest, despite however harsh it may be, is the only way society and humanity as a whole can progress, and regimes such as communism and fascism are nothing less than an attempt to destroy all of humanity.

Amazon Desert,

I'll provide a simple mathematical example to show how increased productivity will mean lay offs as a firm attempts to capture more profits, despite the fact that they are "getting a better deal" on the labor.

Initially a firm pays $5 in labor for each good produced, and makes $1 of profit. (Ignore fixed costs, they don't change in the short-run). This firm makes 100 units with it's labor, so it pays $500 and makes $100 in profit.

Let's say the firm's employees, by competing for incentives, work harder and make twice the units. The price doesn't change, so they still make $1 in profit. Now they pay $500 in labor and make $200 in profits. Looks good right? So why do they fire people?

Instead of merely gaining $100 from new products, the firm could cut the labor force by half and achieve the same level of previous output due to higher productivity. So the firm makes $100 in profit and only pays $250 in labor.

The options the firm faces are thus:

1) Keep the same amount of labor and make $100 more in profits.

2) Release half of the labor, and make $250 in cost savings and forgo the extra profit by selling more units.

Which would a profit maximizing firm choose?

Yes, it is true that cutting costs may also lower revenues. But the point is that the cost cutting was facilitated by workers going for the lovely incentives people drone on about.

Patents and copyrights grant property ownership to those that deserve them.

You seem like a smart guy/girl, why get caught up in value-laden statements about whom has earned what? I'm talking about the practical effects of patents, not attacking the fundamental justifications of ownership.

This does allow a techological monopoly. Property rights are completely compatible with free market capitalism. And this is no different. Property rights are non-existent under communism, therefore patents and copyrights are not used.

1) Property rights are consistant with capitalism, I do not doubt that. However, monopoly rights are inconsistant with free-markets. You cannot seperate the property aspect of patents with the monopoly aspect of patents. Capitalism requires some sort of intellectual property protection, free-markets require the freedom to enter and exit markets. Patents create barriers to market entry, thereby guaranteeing monopoly. How is that compatable with free-markets?

2) I didn't say patents exist under communism, I didn't say what incentives exist under communism, and I am not defending communism. I am simply saying that free-market capitalism lacks the incentives many attribute to it. I don't know how or why people would work hard in communism, but I do not see why people work harder in free-market capitalism [1].




[1] Actually I do have an idea, but it's not very refined so I am not going to post it on this forum.

Communism the ideology that everyone is equal, and given equal opportunities, not neccessarily equal everything. Also, the government still controls how the entire country works. Since I'm a communist since birth, I know what it clearly is. I'll state some communist and non-communist (but thought to be communist) examples:

Communist:

-The government telling people where they live in, and what they live in.
This is a communist practice, mostly because the government determines where you live, and who you live with. That also means that in a communist society, you don't live with your parents or any relatives, which can be dictated by your talents or the needs of the government.

-Everybody gets equal pay
Yes, everybody gets equal pay. Laborers have as much pay as doctors, and the easiest job has the same pay as the hardest job. The next one is the thing that makes sure that you are doing your part.

-Government determines your job, and your education.
If you're stupid, and they want you smart, they'll make you smart, or your dead or placed into another job. You usually can't pick out the job you want. If you want to be an Astronaut, tough luck; you're now an electrician.

Not Communist:

-People starving because of lack of agricultural issues.
Bullshit. There is no communist governments in the world so far. Stalin starved millions of people mostly because he was too much of an industrialist - and a psycho.

-"I get the same pay, no matter how much I work as everyone else."
This one sickens me. THAT'S NOT COMMUNISM. THAT'S MARXISM. Get it right. If you slack off, you get a different job, stil the same pay. But if you slack off, you could be farmer to now a toilet scrubber in a fast food restaurant (*shudders*)

-Russia's communist.
No.

Since you claim that you've been a communist since birth, I was wondering what you find appealing about the system that tells you where to live, what job you perform, and what education you receive. What do you feel you'd get out of life if you'd live in a society like that? I'm asking because I just can't understand why someone would find this outlook attractive.

And the Soviet Union definitely wasn't communist. Marx believed that capitalism must exist in order for communism to develop. Once the capitalist state became wealthy enough to have the ability to care for all of the people economically, a class revolution would take place leading to socialism and eventually to communism. Stalin skipped the whole progression part and decided to rapidly industrialize and implement his 5-year plans to forge the wealth that was to have accumulated from a capitalist state.

I also believe he was a psycho.

Communism cannot work because in order for it to be put in place or to continue working, some people must be silenced. Since when did we start thinking some government beurocrat could decide what we need to live? Conversley, who among us thinks they can tell others what they need to live?

I happen to know a devoted communist and was debating this exact issue with him recently. His initial response was that those living in the communist state would simply agree with the way things were run. After several examples of how there will always be at least one "thought criminal" in every society, my communist friend declared that if someone doesn't agree with the implemented model for society, it's ok to shoot that person in the name of preserving the communist state.
...
Don't ask me to explain this way of thinking because I don't get it.

You seem like a smart guy, why get caught up in value-laden statements about whom has earned what?
Aw, shucks. *looks away*. Its just a little AP economics...

(Im not completely sure what you meant by the second part of the above quote...sorry)

Amazon Desert,

I'll provide a simple mathematical example to show how increased productivity will mean lay offs as a firm attempts to capture more profits, despite the fact that they are "getting a better deal" on the labor.

Initially a firm pays $5 in labor for each good produced, and makes $1 of profit. (Ignore fixed costs, they don't change in the short-run). This firm makes 100 units with it's labor, so it pays $500 and makes $100 in profit.

Let's say the firm's employees, by competing for incentives, work harder and make twice the units. The price doesn't change, so they still make $1 in profit. Now they pay $500 in labor and make $200 in profits. Looks good right? So why do they fire people?

Instead of merely gaining $100 from new products, the firm could cut the labor force by half and achieve the same level of previous output due to higher productivity. So the firm makes $100 in profit and only pays $250 in labor.

The options the firm faces are thus:

1) Keep the same amount of labor and make $100 more in profits.

2) Release half of the labor, and make $250 in cost savings and forgo the extra profit by selling more units.

Which would a profit maximizing firm choose?

Yes, it is true that cutting costs may also lower revenues. But the point is that the cost cutting was facilitated by workers going for the lovely incentives people drone on about.

Your model lacks some important parts. I will attempt to clarify this through accepted economics.
The reason that a firm hires a specific number of workers is because they hire at a point where the marginal revenue product = the marginal cost(the wage). The Marginal product for each worker will initially increase, then decrease as workers are added. This is because of differences in efficiencies achieved by workers. I used to work concession at a movie theatre, so I will use that as an example. Working by myself to serve concessions on a busy night, I would be inefficient and the line would get too long. Many customers would not want to miss their movies, would get fed up, and leave. Adding another person would enable us to serve customers at least twice as quickly. This would cause shorter lines and higher satisfaction with wait times. Adding additional people might further increase our efficiency-some could get orders ready, others could work the registers, etc. But eventually, we would reach a point where the last worker added wasnt increasing productivity as much as the one before him. We only have so much capital-1 large popcorn machine, 5 registers, 4 drink towers, 2 candy cases, etc; And so much space, to go around. Add even more people and marginal revenue would become negative as we got in each other's way. However, each person was getting paid the same, or near it. Adding more people was only useful as long as each person was increasing productivity by more than it cost for him to work. So the managers would estimate how many people were coming on any given night-based on movie popularity, night of the week, various external factors. Then they would, from experience, estimate how many people should work together to efficiently serve this amount of people. One person might be sufficient for a school night with mediocre movies, but on the day spider man 2 came out, he scheduled 7(5 for registers and orders, 2 for helping with orders and stocking, etc.). Maybe 1 person for every register was the most efficient overall, but if only 5 people came to a showing, it was wasteful.

Another good explanation of Diminishing marginal returns is here:
http://www.cr1.dircon.co.uk/TB/2/dreturns.htm
An easier situation to see is with the numbers. Hold on while I go through a short microeconomics lesson:
(I will rewrite your model so that it squares with standard college economics)
Suppose we have a widget factory, where daily production increased as workers were added according to the chart below:
Worker #, Total Produced, Marginal Product
0, 0, 0
1, 6, 6
2, 14, 8
3, 23, 9
4, 32, 9
5, 40, 8
6, 46, 6
7, 50, 4
8, 53, 3
9, 54, 1
10, 53, -1
Now suppose the wage is $45 per day(and the firm can hire as many workers as desired at this price), and the price per unit is $9 (where the firm can sell as many as desired without lowering the price). Fixed costs being constant at $50 per day.
The profit maximizing firm will hire so that marginal revenue = marginal costs. This will result in maximum profits, or minimum losses. With the above conditions, a worker will have to have a marginal revenue product of $45 or higher to be worth hiring. This means that they have to increase production by 5 units or more. in the above conditions, the profit maximizing firm will hire 6 workers for $270 per day. 46 units will be produced and sold for $414. Profit will equal 414-270(wages)-50(fixed costs)=$94 profit. Hiring a 7th worker at this point would increase production by 4. This would increase total revenue by $36, BUT it would cost $45 more to hire him. This would decrease total profit by $9and the firm would not hire him. Hiring only 5 workers would "save" $45 in wages. But it would also reduce production by 6 units, and total revenue by $54, reducing profits by $9. Therefore the firm would hire the sixth worker, but not the seventh.

Do you understand the principles here?

Now let us suppose that, for whatever reason, each worker becomes more productive. Suppose that now, they can make twice the output with the same inputs. Now the chart looks like this:

Worker #, Total Produced, Marginal Product
0, 0, 0
1, 12, 12
2, 28, 16
3, 46, 18
4, 64, 18
5, 80, 16
6, 92, 12
7, 100, 8
8, 106, 6
9, 108, 2
(Ill leave out #10, for obvious reasons)

Product price stays the same, $9 per unit, and wages stay the same at $45 per day, with fixed costs at $50.
At this point, marginal revenue product remains above the wage until after the 8th worker is added. At this point, the firm can produce 106 units and sell them for $954. They have to pay $45 to 8 workers for a total of $360. Profit is: 954(total revenue)-360(wages)-50(fixed costs)=$544 in profit. Hiring an additional worker at this point would add $45 in wages, but only $18
in revenue, decreasing profit by $27. Hiring one less worker would "save" $45 in wages, but forgo $54 dollars in revenue, decreasing profit by $9. Therefore the profit maximizing firm would hire where Marginal costs=marginal revenue. If the firm did as you suggested, and responded to a doubling of productivity with a %50 cut to the labor usage, they would only hire three people. This would produce 46 widgets at $9 each, for a total revenue of $414(the same as before, as you pointed out). Meanwhile the wages would be $45 * 3 employees = $135. Profit would be $414-$135(wages)-$50(fixed)=$229. Less than half of what an increase in employment would produce. Tell me, what would the profit maximizing firm do?

Your model ignores certain proven economic realities...sorry! I would critique it piece by piece, but I dont see a need to. Basically, diminishing marginal returns from labor inputs means that it isnt so cut and dried "$5 in labor, $1 in profit per unit". For one, this assumes that labor is the only input/cost(I know fixed costs dont change in the short run, but they do affect the average total cost of the product. Also, my model also used labor as the only input, but can be readily modified to include capital. I did so as an improvement to your model), and that profit is an addition to the price, and constant. (in the first example, average total costs were $6.96 per unit, average revenue being $9-generating an average profit per unit of $2.04. In the second example, average total costs were $3.87 per unit, average revenue still at $9-generating an average profit per unit of $5.13) In fact, average per unit profit changes whenever any variable is changed. (you may have been thinking of "normal profit", payment to an entrepreneur. This is a cost and is included as such in the price).
Also note how the profit per unit, and the total profit, was increased as a result of the decrease in average unit costs.[footnote 1]

(ask if you still dont understand, or have questions. These are basically taken from school economics textbooks. I just finished AP econ with a 99)
As you can see, An increase in productivity DID NOT lead to a decrease in the # of workers hired, but an increase.


Yes, it is true that cutting costs may also lower revenues. But the point is that the cost cutting was facilitated by workers going for the lovely incentives people drone on about.

Cutting costs by firing three workers causes a much larger decrease to total revenue. This reduces profits and a rational firm WILL NOT do this. If you all of a sudden find that something is a better deal(workers in this case) It makes more sense to buy/hire more of them. The numbers back this up. I would challenge you to come up with a rational model that proves otherwise, but it's impossible.
FACT: Increased efficiency cuts costs, increases output, and increases the amount of input used.

the lovely incentives people drone on about

These can be as simple as "work or get fired". Communism uses a "work or get shot" method. Both need some sort of incentive, but capitalist systems use a more voluntary, less permanent method.


...the firm could cut the labor force by half...
2) Release half of the labor, and make $250 in cost savings
One more thing, have you ever noticed that firms usually dont lay off people when their productivity is on the rise? usually it is when sales are dropping, profits are shrinking, and costs are increasing that they do so.
Another case is when [marginal labor product]/[labor cost] becomes less than the [marginal product]/[cost] of another input. For example, when the minimum wage was enacted, many workers lost their jobs as they were replaced by machines.(in that case, labor cost went up while productivity stayed the same. Another case is when mechanization costs go down while productivity remains constant or increases, or when unions increase factory wages)


You seem like a smart guy/girl, why get caught up in value-laden statements about whom has earned what? I'm talking about the practical effects of patents, not attacking the fundamental justifications of ownership.

Sorry then, I must have misunderstood you. You said that patent rights are incompatible with free markets...
A free market relies on property rights. Patents are just another form of legal property protections. If I discover an idea, I own that idea. This means I can use it, and no one else without my permission. This does give me a monopoly on the use of that idea. However monopolies ARE NOT incompatible with free markets. The use of force IS. To clarify, if a single firm is able to make a product at a price no one else can compete with, or at a quality that cannot be competed with, it gains monopoly status when consumers give that firm all the business. This is ok. This is compatible with a free market. What isn't is when the government grants a firm the "right" to be the only provider of a certain good or service, an example is the post office or utilities.
a very good explanation of this, better than my own(above) is at:
http://capitalism.org/faq/monopolies.htm


1) Property rights are consistant with capitalism, I do not doubt that.

yes, of course...capitalism is based on an individual's divine rights to life, liberty and property.


However, monopoly rights are inconsistant with free-markets.

Yes, monopoly "rights" are. No one has a right to outlaw competition with thier business. But copyright laws do not grant this "right". Instead, they prevent another firm from stealing their property. The other firm has no right to someone else's property. But the government's only objective purposes are to protect the lives, liberty, and property of it's own citizens. Therefore this is a justifiable use of government force. No force is needed to create the monopoly-though perhaps indirectly. It is similar to defending your own life by taking the life of someone attempting to murder you.


You cannot seperate the property aspect of patents with the monopoly aspect of patents.

To the extent that one has the exclusive right to their own property? I guess not. I own all the rights to my car, house, or other property. Why should I not have the exclusive right to control how my intellectual property is used?
As you said...

Capitalism requires some sort of intellectual property protection



Free-markets require the freedom to enter and exit markets.

Not really. I cannot enter the oil market because I do not own any oil fields. Regardless how free the market is, not everyone has the "right" to freely enter and exit any market. You may say "But you can buy an oil field!". You can buy the rights to a patent as well. In either case, the owner must get a price he is willing to accept, and the buyer must pay a price he is willing to pay.
Easy entry and exit is not neccesary for a market to be "free". The airplane manufacturing market is extremely difficult to enter. Does this mean that it is not "free"? The real-estate market might become difficult to enter if one person bought all the land up and refused to sell. No one has a "right" to buy anything, regardless of how free the market is. If the rightful owner of something, no matter what it is, does not wish to sell something-such is their right.

Patents create barriers to market entry, thereby guaranteeing monopoly. How is that compatable with free-markets?

Barriers to entry are against free market capitalism only if imposed by force(government), but not if the government is enforcing someone's (justly obtained) property. If the government is not allowed to enforce property rights, then capitalism does not truly exist. Instead there is anarchy, truly a form of socialism. Capitalism.org sums it up quite nicely: "Anarchism is not a form of capitalism; anarchism is a form of collectivism, where individual rights are subject to the rule of competing gangs"


2) I didn't say patents exist under communism, I didn't say what incentives exist under communism, and I am not defending communism.

Ah, my mistake then. I assumed because of the topic title, context, and wording. I must confess I did not read every single post.


I am simply saying that free-market capitalism lacks the incentives many attribute to it.

Please clarify this. I cannot understand. Produce well and you could make billions, and get everything you ever wanted and more. Or perhaps you will only be promoted and earn more. Perhaps they refuse to promote you, you can leave and find a job that pays you what you can agree is fair. Or refuse to produce at all and you starve. How are these not incentives?

I don't know how or why people would work hard in communism, but I do not see why people work harder in free-market capitalism [1].

People only work at all under communism because they are forced to. If they refuse to produce at their "ability"(determined by the state), they are punished or killed. Since people inherently would prefer to work as little as possible, they therefore do what they can to diminish their own "abilities". See my first post on this topic.

People work harder under "hands off" (free market) capitalism. Look around you. They do this because they see that THEY are the cause of their own prosperity or misfortune. They see others around them, and want what they have, and aspire to earn more. Their own greed drives them to produce more for others-because they can only earn money through voluntary exchange. The most productive, intelligent, and talented citizens end up with the most capital and cash. They are able to make better decisions in investing this, because they have a good track record already.
People will always want, but only capitalism can use this powerful force as a blessing rather than a curse. From each according to his ability and wants, to each according to his ability and wants.


[1] Actually I do have an idea, but it's not very refined so I am not going to post it on this forum.
Er...ok...?

[1]One thing to keep in mind here, is that this example uses a perfectly comp. market model(In the short run, economic profits are possible). This means that a firm can sell all it can produce at the same price. Charging this price results in X sales, charging a higher price results in no sales, and a lower price still results in X sales. Basically, this just keeps the model so that marginal revenue is constant. If the market used were not perfectly competitive, the firm would have a downsloping demand curve. While the basic concepts would have held true, the model required would have been much more difficult.(Both workers and widgets were hired/sold in perfect comp. conditions for this excercise)
[2]Except where quoted, this entire post is my own work. Just thought I should mention that. Also, this isnt my only nation. Usually I post with others, but this one just happened to be logged in when I first found this topic. Also please excuse any typos/misspellings. Ive become dependent on a spell checker...
[3]One more thing I found with your model, not that it really matters much, but it does mess it up... According to it, the price per unit is $6. It costs the firm $500 to make 100 units. Doubling productivity increases this to 200. Now the firm makes $1200, with $500 in wages. $700 profit, not $200. Cut the labor force in half, and not only do fixed costs become more concentrated(oh, yeah we are ignoring those...) but the equation changes to $250 in wages, $600 in revenue. $350 profit. Which would you rather have? 700 or 350?

Initially a firm pays $5 in labor for each good produced, and makes $1 of profit. (Ignore fixed costs, they don't change in the short-run). This firm makes 100 units with it's labor, so it pays $500 and makes $100 in profit.

Let's say the firm's employees, by competing for incentives, work harder and make twice the units. The price doesn't change, so they still make $1 in profit. Now they pay $500 in labor and make $200 in profits. Looks good right? So why do they fire people?

Instead of merely gaining $100 from new products, the firm could cut the labor force by half and achieve the same level of previous output due to higher productivity. So the firm makes $100 in profit and only pays $250 in labor.

In aggregate it is true that the more goods that enter the market, the lower the prices for those goods. However, this is not becase of lower demand (thinking about it graphically, a shift in the supply curve will not shift the demand curve, there is a differnace between movement along a curve and the movement of the curve as a whole). But anyway, that doesn't really refute my arguement, all I am assuming to set up my agruement is that an individual firm cannot affect the price of a good no matter how much it produces. This is always true in a free-market.

You are correct that the demand curve doesn't shift, but the equilibrium moves along the demand curve so that the actual demand met does change.

As for your assumption, you are correct that that is assumed for the free market. However, it is used to help the mathematical calculations much more than it is practically applied.

First if, as in the example I set up, only one firm sells more goods then the price will not go down (see above). Second, you are ignoring my agruement for the sake of getting basic economics incorrect. The firm will not take advantage of added reveune, instead it will take advantage of increased productivity and cut labor costs because it can't affect the price and because profit per unit is lower than labor costs per unit.

Labor works harder >>> Less labor can make the same amount of goods as before >>> Firm releases excess labor.

OK, we are assuming that the workers from an individual company work harder than all the rest, and that the added supply from the company is miniscule compared to the aggragate supply.

In this situation, the extra goods from added worker productivity will have a marginal revenue of nearly 100% and a marginal cost of nearly 0. No company will cut the production of a good with a marginal profit that ridiculously high.

Firms will indeed benefit from worker productivity, I did not write anything to the contrary. When you are talking about "benefits" do you mean to consumers? Society as a whole? I don't care about that, it is not my arguement.

Businesses that offer fair wages and prices (following the equilibrium) will benefit from efficiency and less waste. The workers/consumers will obviously benefit as well from fair wages and prices.

Let me make this simple for you. When workers compete for imagined incentives, they end up raising their total level of productivity to the point where firms do not need them all anymore. Therefore, firm's will release excess labor. Therefore, worker's rewards for harder work is being laid off. The incentives are imagined.

We can look at this from a labor/wage standpoint as well.

Let us say that a company is paying a worker $15/hr. Let us also say that this worker is overacheiving and is providing labor utility at a rate of $20/hr. Now explain to me why a company would cut a worker that is giving $5/hr worth of unpaid labor.

Alright, one more basic concept I have to explain. Patents and copywrites are temporary rights to monopoly. Monopoly is a non-competative market. Free-markets would not have patents and copywrites because they invite monopoly into the system. Why do we issue them? Because without monopoly rights, firms cannot regain their investment in research and development.

1) Patents and copyrights are a method of protecting intangible labor. The individual responsible for the invention provide a great deal of labor utility in the form of expertise and effort, and the patent helps to insure that he and only he will receive fair compensation for his labor.

2) High innovation industries rely on substitution goods not on brand name competitors.

So, to recap:

The "missing" incentives in communism do not exist in free-market capitalism, rather, in one case, they are created by the government subverting the free-market nature of the system via patents and copywrites.

Economics aside, capitalism respects the rights of the people where communism doesn't.

Amazon Desert,

I'll provide a simple mathematical example to show how increased productivity will mean lay offs as a firm attempts to capture more profits, despite the fact that they are "getting a better deal" on the labor.

Initially a firm pays $5 in labor for each good produced, and makes $1 of profit. (Ignore fixed costs, they don't change in the short-run). This firm makes 100 units with it's labor, so it pays $500 and makes $100 in profit.

Let's say the firm's employees, by competing for incentives, work harder and make twice the units. The price doesn't change, so they still make $1 in profit. Now they pay $500 in labor and make $200 in profits. Looks good right? So why do they fire people?

Instead of merely gaining $100 from new products, the firm could cut the labor force by half and achieve the same level of previous output due to higher productivity. So the firm makes $100 in profit and only pays $250 in labor.

Your business sense is a little off.

Assuming that labor is the only cost, and that the business pays labor cost of $5 with a profit of $1, then sales revenue from a single good is $6. So for $500 of labor, there would be $600 of revenue, $100 of profit. Now if the labor force managed to work harder and produce twice the output, with a labor cost of $500, there would be $1200 in revenue and $700 of profit.

Revenue is directly proportion to output, not profit.

Please take offence at this:
It is hard to put in to words how much I hate the principles of socialism, therefore I doubt my arguments will be particularly coherent. I don’t care. Listen to this, because this is what socialism means to me.
According to socialist principle if I was single it would be ok for me to have your spouse whenever I wanted, because I did not have one. I know a person is not property but for me its the same damm principle. Socialism is a retarded unfair set of ideals.

Laugh or cry... laugh or cry.

Laugh. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Okay, you idea of socialism and Communism is horribly contrived. Did you know that Democracy is a form of Socialism? Woops, guess not. Of course, the US is not a Democracy, but we won't get into that.

Socialism, in no way, effects your personal life in the way you stated. Socialism is a form of Government in which all people are treated equally, where none are given "preferential treatment", a governmetn controlled by the people so to speak. Does this mean that because I have a wife and you don't, we have to share my wife? Hell no, it doesn't. If you really think so, you have been fed some really bad propaganda. This has never been true, in any Communist/Socialist country, even the feux-Communism of the USSR(Which was socialist, but a far different kind-Facism). You really have a convuluted idea of Socialism.

Now, does it also mean that what I own is what you own? No. That is taking Communism/Socialism to it's most extreme. No, you still own what you have, but we share equal power in the government(Which is not true in America, I can elaborate), and equal power in the Economy(Which is not true in America, by any means). Does this mean there is no possible way for you to get further than me? No. You could conceivably find some way to get ahead, but you would still have no more power economically/politically than I do.

Once again, you have no clue what Socialism is.

no, it can't, for two major reasons:

1)The majority of people will always value economic/financial freedom over forced economic equality/planned economy/limited ownership rights.

2)Unless communism exists in a vacuum (IE, there is only one country and it is communist... or all countries are Communist... or the Communist country simply trades with no one), its economy is doomed to fail because it cannot compete with free-market countries in terms of trade. Business conditions are so poor due to the constraints which Communism puts on commerce that the vast majority of products will be of crappy quality or high price (relative to quality) ... IE, they will present poor value. People from other countries don't want to buy crappy products.

mob rule would be indicative of a true democracy... sort of like France in the 1780s.

mob rule would be indicative of a true democracy... sort of like France in the 1780s.

That worked out pretty well for France didn't it?

Laugh or cry... laugh or cry.

Laugh. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Okay, you idea of socialism and Communism is horribly contrived. Did you know that Democracy is a form of Socialism? Woops, guess not. Of course, the US is not a Democracy, but we won't get into that.

Socialism, in no way, effects your personal life in the way you stated. Socialism is a form of Government in which all people are treated equally, where none are given "preferential treatment", a governmetn controlled by the people so to speak. Does this mean that because I have a wife and you don't, we have to share my wife? Hell no, it doesn't. If you really think so, you have been fed some really bad propaganda. This has never been true, in any Communist/Socialist country, even the feux-Communism of the USSR(Which was socialist, but a far different kind-Facism). You really have a convuluted idea of Socialism.

Now, does it also mean that what I own is what you own? No. That is taking Communism/Socialism to it's most extreme. No, you still own what you have, but we share equal power in the government(Which is not true in America, I can elaborate), and equal power in the Economy(Which is not true in America, by any means). Does this mean there is no possible way for you to get further than me? No. You could conceivably find some way to get ahead, but you would still have no more power economically/politically than I do.

Once again, you have no clue what Socialism is.

In other words, after all of your apologizing for socialism, it turns out that socialism still

a)Punishes and/or thwarts success

and

b)Rewards sloth/averageness

And because of that, can never maximize the production capacity of its people and, ergo, is why socialist countries have such crappy economies.

In other words, after all of your apologizing for socialism, it turns out that socialism still

a)Punishes and/or thwarts success

and

b)Rewards sloth/averageness

And because of that, can never maximize the production capacity of its people and, ergo, is why socialist countries have such crappy economies.

I never even eluded to this. I stated that all have equal power in Economical and Political worlds. No where did I say that Success is thwarted or that Sloth is rewarded. You are putting words in my mouth, ones which I didn't even suggest.

The Problem with Communism is that there is no incentive, without a reason to work the economy falters and cannot support itself until the government collapses. Also Communism is a flawed system, it is not supposed to have a strong central government and this lends itself to problems, such as technological progress. Without an incentive to work and the government subsidation to support new work the government is innately flawed and will not succeed.

How about this:
People work for the state (say) six hours a day, doing whatever the state decides they are good at. If the state decides it is getting from each according to his ability (i.e. you DON'T have to shovel a ton of coal if you aren't that hero guy - can't remember his name) then it gives to each according to his need.

The rest of the time they can work at whatever they want, getting paid an appropriate salary at a low tax rate. This money is for luxury goods, buying a bigger home. They can write books, or make Xboxes, or just plow the fields or shovel coal for another six hours.

Who here does not want to live in a country where everybody is equal regardless of....anything?! Communism offers the chance for genuine equality, for real freedom, and real social progression...for those of you who say that human nature will cause it not to work obviously don't have much trust in the members of our species....I mean, we have some psychopaths, we really do, but on the whole, people are fair to one another...or at least they would be if they had the chance. Communism gives them that chance.

Socialism, in no way, effects your personal life in the way you stated. Socialism is a form of Government in which all people are treated equally, where none are given "preferential treatment", a governmetn controlled by the people so to speak. Does this mean that because I have a wife and you don't, we have to share my wife? Hell no, it doesn't. If you really think so, you have been fed some really bad propaganda. This has never been true, in any Communist/Socialist country, even the feux-Communism of the USSR(Which was socialist, but a far different kind-Facism). You really have a convuluted idea of Socialism.

Now, does it also mean that what I own is what you own? No. That is taking Communism/Socialism to it's most extreme. No, you still own what you have, but we share equal power in the government(Which is not true in America, I can elaborate), and equal power in the Economy(Which is not true in America, by any means). Does this mean there is no possible way for you to get further than me? No. You could conceivably find some way to get ahead, but you would still have no more power economically/politically than I do.

Once again, you have no clue what Socialism is.

Sorry bud, but people are born with more economic power than others. Any attempt to even out economic power will result in "preferential treatment" towards those with less labor to provide the economy.

As for political power, there is absolutely no way you can maintain an equilibrium in that.

How about this:
People work for the state (say) six hours a day, doing whatever the state decides they are good at. If the state decides it is getting from each according to his ability (i.e. you DON'T have to shovel a ton of coal if you aren't that hero guy - can't remember his name) then it gives to each according to his need.

I will never accept that because it treats people as units of society, as cogs in a machine, as farm animals. Instead of people working and receiving money for their work, they work for the government and the government makes sure they get fed.

How does instilling slave labor solve capitalism's economic woes?

Who here does not want to live in a country where everybody is equal regardless of....anything?! Communism offers the chance for genuine equality, for real freedom, and real social progression...for those of you who say that human nature will cause it not to work obviously don't have much trust in the members of our species....I mean, we have some psychopaths, we really do, but on the whole, people are fair to one another...or at least they would be if they had the chance. Communism gives them that chance.

1. The "equality" provided by Communism is fake. Just because everyone earns the same wages doesn't mean everyone is treated equally.

2. What is your definition of "real freedom"?

3. Since you trust people so much, how about you ask the next person you see to hold your wallet for you while.

Who here does not want to live in a country where everybody is equal regardless of....anything?! Communism offers the chance for genuine equality, for real freedom, and real social progression...for those of you who say that human nature will cause it not to work obviously don't have much trust in the members of our species....I mean, we have some psychopaths, we really do, but on the whole, people are fair to one another...or at least they would be if they had the chance. Communism gives them that chance.


First of all, I don't want to live in a country where everyone is equal. Is it really such a crime for me to say that I want to be better than others? (Through hard work of course not race, sex, ect.) Second of all, equality does NOT nessesarly mean freedom. I mean communism is probally the opposite of an equal society, think about it, I work my ass off performing brain surgery whilst my lazy buddy works at mcdonalds and he's not even good at THAT, yet we both get the same amount of money. That is NOT equal. Getting back to the freedom aspect, communism tells you what you are going to do with your life, where is the freedom in that? At least in America we can still tell our children they can be the president if they want to be, as long as they are willing to work. (Again, this is assuming for a second there is no racism, sexism, ect. to hold someone back)

I will never accept that because it treats people as units of society, as cogs in a machine, as farm animals. Instead of people working and receiving money for their work, they work for the government and the government makes sure they get fed.



This is exactly the same thing in Capitalism. Those with more economic power only see those with little to no economic power as labor, number, and basically cogs in a machine. Very few firms actually value the individual customer. Same effect, different people in charge. Your ideals are rather hypocrytical.

Please! Communism could work, people need to read Marx. In the United States the status quo is against Communism, which is an outgrowth of socialism. The united states is growing more toward the Smith model of lassaiez faire capitalism daily, which makes the idea of a revolution more porbable, were it not for the Keynesian approach. Keynes is the devil!

OK, here goes, again. the central tenant of Communism is the value theory of economics. Accepting the value theory of economics is the only way that communism makes sense. Here is how it works, take the example of a computer, in the value theory of economics the silica and garmanium and arsenic have value in and of themselves the computer is the sum value of those components minus the mechanincal work required to build it plus the value of the human labour required to build it. In this way profit is made from theft of labour value. Labour value comes from the workers, their education and their ability to perform work. Do you understand?

Suggested Readings: 1848 Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts. Karl Marx

This is exactly the same thing in Capitalism. Those with more economic power only see those with little to no economic power as labor, number, and basically cogs in a machine. Very few firms actually value the individual customer. Same effect, different people in charge. Your ideals are rather hypocrytical.

...no it's not. Assuming we accept your idea that workers are just cogs in a machine and that firms value the individual, they still don't take their money and decide what to do with it. Hence, they still have the choice. Slaves are forced to work or they will be killed/starved. (communism) Workers can not work (Starve possible but most likely not death), or they can work, and even if they are abused and ignored, they still get their check and can buy their own food or whatever else they want. (capitalism)

Choice is the key.

What do material possessions give? Do they make you feel important? Do they make you feel some how better than everyone else? What do material possessions matter? Is it better to have a life solely for the possession of more stuff. Or to be poor but happy and have some sort of enlightenment?

Mankind cannot handle communism or any other form of government in which it takes away power. Those in power want to stay in power. And those with money want to have money. Communism as it has been shown so far like in Russia is what will continue to happen until we all learn to trust each other and to work for a common good.

China cannot really be called communist. Even before the revolution during Imperial times there was a system of social accountability and monitoring. In order for the Emperor to better serve his people he needed to know where they where at and what they where doing. But Communist China is no better than Imperial China. Just now in Communist China there is no more classes.

In order for any other form of government to work something drastic will need to happen. After a war when all traces of the old ways are gone. When entire generations are born into a new land and a new way of life can there be anything else. Being lazy will hurt the community and those you know. And most people do not want to hurt those they know so they will work better to ensure that those they know are no longer being hurt. But they must be instilled with such concepts from the earilest age.

Like it was said before no one is willing to change their views. Everyone is to blinded by their own prejudices and ego's to admit that someone else as a point. Or some other way might be better. Those in America see the socialist Europe as a threat to everything they think is right. Those in Europe see Capitalist America as immoral, corrupt and ignorant. Most of these arguments are moot anyway. Nothing will be done to change it, since everything is in a corrupt and degenerating status quo.

This is exactly the same thing in Capitalism. Those with more economic power only see those with little to no economic power as labor, number, and basically cogs in a machine. Very few firms actually value the individual customer. Same effect, different people in charge. Your ideals are rather hypocrytical.

No, "From each his ability, to each his need" does not value the individual at all. It states that the person works for the whole, and the whole makes sure he survives.

In capitalism it is "From each a chosen amount of utility, to each a value equal to that utility provided." In other words, the individual decides how much he values his labor and sells it to the employer. There is free choice.

In capitalism the individual casts himself into the machine to work as a gear, and the employer pays him for his input into the machine. In communism, it is assumed that the individual is a gear, and the government just makes sure that the gear continues to function.

Society will always have roles that need to be filled. Communism forces people into those roles, capitalism allows them to choose.

OK, here goes, again. the central tenant of Communism is the value theory of economics. Accepting the value theory of economics is the only way that communism makes sense. Here is how it works, take the example of a computer, in the value theory of economics the silica and garmanium and arsenic have value in and of themselves the computer is the sum value of those components minus the mechanincal work required to build it plus the value of the human labour required to build it. In this way profit is made from theft of labour value. Labour value comes from the workers, their education and their ability to perform work. Do you understand?

The LTV is junk as it ignores the utility to the consumer and the supply and demand of a product.

What do material possessions give? Do they make you feel important? Do they make you feel some how better than everyone else? What do material possessions matter? Is it better to have a life solely for the possession of more stuff. Or to be poor but happy and have some sort of enlightenment?

Material possessions make my life easier, they entertain me, they enlighten me.

Should I give up my television because you don't understand the utility I get from it? How can you decide how much I value something?

Material possessions make my life easier, they entertain me, they enlighten me.

Should I give up my television because you don't understand the utility I get from it? How can you decide how much I value something?

Amen. You could say that everything besides food and water are material possessions. So, yes, material possessions matter and they do make my life better. I don't need you to make me feel guilty because my house cost more to build than most make in their lifetimes. Life is not fair, never will be, make the best of what you got and help those when you can.

I don't think we will ever reach true communism, but its good to have a utopian goal, and what better goal could be than the elimination of state and class?

As a side note:
A Communist state isn't necceraly a Authoritarian or Totalitaran, but lennism and stalinism has given communism a bad name.

I belive that the production should be given to semi independent Kooroeratives, to eliminate the danger of a centralisation of power.

If we on the left can be said to have learned anything from the Sovjet, its that Bakunin was right a centralisation of pwer leads to tyranny.

Therefore a Socialist/Communist state must be democratic and open, to remove some of the dangers of corruption.

How about this:
People work for the state (say) six hours a day, doing whatever the state decides they are good at. If the state decides it is getting from each according to his ability (i.e. you DON'T have to shovel a ton of coal if you aren't that hero guy - can't remember his name) then it gives to each according to his need.

The rest of the time they can work at whatever they want, getting paid an appropriate salary at a low tax rate. This money is for luxury goods, buying a bigger home. They can write books, or make Xboxes, or just plow the fields or shovel coal for another six hours.

The way things are now is basically the same, but less obvious. You work for someone else, say 8 hours a day. At the end of the day, the government steals, er taxes, say-25% of it away. You are paid for 6 hours, and the other two hours you were working for the benefit of the government.

Vittos Ordination, did you just completely ignore my post? or did you paraphrase it?

Your business sense is a little off.

Assuming that labor is the only cost, and that the business pays labor cost of $5 with a profit of $1, then sales revenue from a single good is $6. So for $500 of labor, there would be $600 of revenue, $100 of profit. Now if the labor force managed to work harder and produce twice the output, with a labor cost of $500, there would be $1200 in revenue and $700 of profit.

Revenue is directly proportion to output, not profit.


[3]One more thing I found with your model, not that it really matters much, but it does mess it up... According to it, the price per unit is $6. It costs the firm $500 to make 100 units. Doubling productivity increases this to 200. Now the firm makes $1200, with $500 in wages. $700 profit, not $200. Cut the labor force in half, and not only do fixed costs become more concentrated(oh, yeah we are ignoring those...) but the equation changes to $250 in wages, $600 in revenue. $350 profit. Which would you rather have? 700 or 350?

This wasnt the only point duplicated either...Did you just ignore my post because of its length or complexity? Don't get me wrong, I like what you said, but I took a lot of time and trouble to say it first and you basically just said it again...

Who here does not want to live in a country where everybody is equal regardless of....anything?! Communism offers the chance for genuine equality, for real freedom, and real social progression...for those of you who say that human nature will cause it not to work obviously don't have much trust in the members of our species....I mean, we have some psychopaths, we really do, but on the whole, people are fair to one another...or at least they would be if they had the chance. Communism gives them that chance.

I for one, do not. People are inherently unequal, there is no way around that. Michael Jordan and Bill Gates for example. One is much more gifted in Basketball, but the other has his own gifts. Neither is equal to the other.
THIS IS NOT A BAD THING.
Both of them provide a service to their fellow man, and both are rewarded by those they serve Voluntarily. Each deserves every penny they earn. But suppose some beaurocrat in the government decides to tax them, and give some of that money to someone else. It would not matter if the recipient was dirt poor, NOTHING can give him a right to the forcible aquisition of someone elses money. Gates doesnt benefit from the transaction...
I am unequal from girls in that they can have babies and I can only father them. Not a bad thing. I am unequal from soldiers in that they are conditioned and trained to kill/attack/defend, while I am not. Not a bad thing. I am unequal from those older or younger than myself, Not a bad thing. I am unequal from everyone. No two people are alike. Not even in "pure communism." No two people share exactly equal fingerprints, thoughts, hopes, dreams, talents, intelligence, strength, personality. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING(Dont know how to bold...sorry)

A fact that communism cannot overcome is that humanity has unlimited wants, but limited resources. Whoever controls the resources, be it business owner, Government planner, dictator, king, homeowner, etc. will naturally work to satisfy his or her own wants.(often, these wants include helping their fellow man...charity, volunteer work, etc.-take a look at the amount of money Gates donates to charity each year)
The only way to get some one to exert more effort in work is if they see it to be in their own best interests. Communism usually has to kill those who refuse to work, whereas capitalism just ignores them.

REAL freedom means having a choice to succeed or fail. Genuine equality means that no one is permitted to steal money from another-not even a majority supported government-or else everyone is stolen from the same(flat tax), or else no one owns anything to steal in the first place("pure" communism). "communism gives them the chance to be fair to one another"-they ALREADY have this "chance". I want something, you have it. I give you what you are willing to accept and I am willing to pay and you give me what I want. How is this unfair?
Psychopaths are not needed to screw up communism. It is a doomed idea because human reason already dooms it. Humans inherently do not like to work-we only do so because we must. Humans inherently want certain things that they do not have-we attempt to attain them. If ability is punished by having to work harder and "need" is rewarded by gaining more stuff, people will work to see that their "need" is greater and their "ability" is smaller. Why should I manage a factory or farm when I can earn just as much as a menial worker? Why should I work to increase my skills and talents when I will only cause my workload to increase in proportion to my ability?(While my wages stay the same)


How does instilling slave labor solve capitalism's economic woes?

For one, capitalism is anti-slave. Voluntary exchange of value for value excludes this possibility.
Another thing, what do you think taxes are? I must work part of the day without pay-this money being taken from me by force, against my will. Is not slavery "involuntary servitude"? If I am working for the sake of another man against my will, that is slavery already.
One more thing, Taxes are nothing new...they have not "solved" any woes. If anything they have increased them(FDR tripled taxes during the great depression, this and many other things helped to prolong it for a decade). Reagan's, and other tax cuts have done much more to "solve" problems, real or imagined.


What do material possessions give? Do they make you feel important? Do they make you feel some how better than everyone else? What do material possessions matter? Is it better to have a life solely for the possession of more stuff. Or to be poor but happy and have some sort of enlightenment?

Ayn Rand asks this question as well...But answers it pretty darn well.

"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality--the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?


Ugh. Its three in the morning. Good night.

Vittos Ordination, did you just completely ignore my post? or did you paraphrase it?

This wasnt the only point duplicated either...Did you just ignore my post because of its length or complexity? Don't get me wrong, I like what you said, but I took a lot of time and trouble to say it first and you basically just said it again...

I apologize, I made that post before reading your response, as for the other points, those were in direct response to points Nakitas directed at a previous post of mine. It doesn't appear that he plans on responding anyway.

For one, capitalism is anti-slave. Voluntary exchange of value for value excludes this possibility.

Yes, Adam Smith argued that theft is the worst crime a man can commit. However, when slaves are considered to be outside of society and are treated as possessions, slavery is not at odds with capitalism.

Another thing, what do you think taxes are? I must work part of the day without pay-this money being taken from me by force, against my will. Is not slavery "involuntary servitude"? If I am working for the sake of another man against my will, that is slavery already.

Taxes are dues to society. They pay for the government to maintain society. Taxes are not theft and are fair as long as:

1. they do not serve wealth redistribution services.

2. people are free to move in and out of the society

3. all government acts and works are universal, in that all citizens have the opportunity to enjoy the works and protection of government.

One more thing, Taxes are nothing new...they have not "solved" any woes. If anything they have increased them(FDR tripled taxes during the great depression, this and many other things helped to prolong it for a decade). Reagan's, and other tax cuts have done much more to "solve" problems, real or imagined.

Agreed.

In my opinion taxes are not a problem, the wasteful expenditure of taxes is the problem.

I apologize, I made that post before reading your response, as for the other points, those were in direct response to points Nakitas directed at a previous post of mine. It doesn't appear that he plans on responding anyway.

Thanks...I figured that was the case...nothing else made sense...Thanks again. Sorry if I came down a little hard on you...I just dont like inefficiency... ;-) .
And yes, there isnt much he can say now, is there? His model is decimated, his points have all been shot down TWICE.
OWNED!
Way to go Vittos!

Yes, Adam Smith argued that theft is the worst crime a man can commit. However, when slaves are considered to be outside of society and are treated as possessions, slavery is not at odds with capitalism.

Agreed. This was the case in America before the 1860s. Slaves werent considered to be real people. However, nowadays, (at least in USAmerica), I do not believe the government, or the people, would allow this despicable practice again.
Rarely does the government succeed well at protecting life, liberty, and property-but slavery in the US is gone for good I believe.

Taxes are dues to society. They pay for the government to maintain society.

Perhaps. In theory.
Here is a good article from the Washington Times:
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050306-100023-9517r.htm
Basically, the temptation to abuse this taxation ability is too strong I believe. Especially in a democracy.
Because power depends on people liking you, and people like you if you give them presents or money. And if you have the power to give them "gifts" with someone else's money, that is not morally justifiable.
A flat tax is necesary(sp? sorry). I personally like the "fair tax" plan, mostly for its simplicity/flatness.
But it is still a bit progressive. Ill live...


Taxes are not theft and are fair as long as:

1. they do not serve wealth redistribution services.

2. people are free to move in and out of the society

3. all government acts and works are universal, in that all citizens have the opportunity to enjoy the works and protection of government.

I would like to agree with this...but show me any tax in history that has satisfied any two or more of these conditions first...


Agreed.

yay!


In my opinion taxes are not a problem, the wasteful expenditure of taxes is the problem.
I agree with the second part, but believe that it is inextricable from the first.
Give someone the "right" to forcibly take someone elses money, and you can guarantee that they wont use it as efficiently as the rightful owner.
Oh sure, you might take someones drug money and spend it on something more useful, but there will always be more taken from those who earn more, unless the tax is ridiculously regressive; and those who earn more know how to handle money better than those who earn less. They will use it more efficiently, in ways that best increase growth, efficiency, security(the rich desire this more than most...hence treasury bonds), and other good things.
Even if a few fail to do so, a majority of the taxes taken will be used in ways that are less beneficial than the default alternatives.

Of course, if the government stuck to its actual constitutional limitations...It could pay for everything with a infintesimal fraction of its current budget. Probably with voluntary fees(for certain services, like judicial, etc.) even.

Or maybe like it does in Jennifer Government...hehe-Privatize Everything!




(jk on that last line...mostly)

It will work!!!!!!!

But only if done on a global scale.

My idea:

Initially, the world decides that it should have an all powerful leadership that can do whatever they want. (I don't know how, but) the world would vote in about 200-400 representatives from different countries, and with many different beliefs. These people will be there on a voluntary bases, with their interests in the protection of the earth. THEY WILL NOT BE PAIED!!!!!!!! Money is the source of corruption. They will live at a special place where they have access to food, entertainment, etc. They will have no need for money as they get everything they need from there. There will be a "democratic (and i use this term loosely)" government, but only within itself. There will be no leader and no opposition etc. There will be a speaker and several groups that specialise in things. There will be no majority group.

After they are voted in, they will have ultimate power. They will make the worldly decisions and have supreme control. (Current governments will still work sort of. They would have less power though.) The group will be a dictatorship, but it will be in their interests to help the earth!! The press will have NO ACCESS to them. The press always twists the truth.

There will be no war, because it is a dictatorship. When a member dies, the rest of the group will vote for another from candidates who express a "want" to help the earth. This is because the general public are idiots, and should not be allowed to make essential decisions.

It will take a few years for the group to settle and either bring more people in or get rid of some. But after this time it should function as a good communist dictatorship.

Thanks...I figured that was the case...nothing else made sense...Thanks again. Sorry if I came down a little hard on you...I just dont like inefficiency... ;-) .
And yes, there isnt much he can say now, is there? His model is decimated, his points have all been shot down TWICE.
OWNED!
Way to go Vittos!

I have a feeling he was using a little reverse reasoning. He decided he didn't like capitalism and worked backwards trying to justify his dislike for it. Because of this he invented faulty reasons with mathematics that he didn't think to second guess.

Agreed. This was the case in America before the 1860s. Slaves werent considered to be real people. However, nowadays, (at least in USAmerica), I do not believe the government, or the people, would allow this despicable practice again.
Rarely does the government succeed well at protecting life, liberty, and property-but slavery in the US is gone for good I believe.

I have no doubt that America will never see a slave system again (don't ask the communists, they will say we still have one). Like I said, that comes from our learning to respect other races as equal than it does from respecting property rights.

Perhaps. In theory.
Here is a good article from the Washington Times:
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050306-100023-9517r.htm
Basically, the temptation to abuse this taxation ability is too strong I believe. Especially in a democracy.
Because power depends on people liking you, and people like you if you give them presents or money. And if you have the power to give them "gifts" with someone else's money, that is not morally justifiable.
A flat tax is necesary(sp? sorry). I personally like the "fair tax" plan, mostly for its simplicity/flatness.
But it is still a bit progressive. Ill live...

I agree that as long as there are taxes, there will be problems with pork barrel spending. And like you said, a democracy is especially troublesome, as politicians will try to buy votes by bringing large amounts of unnecessary money to their home regions.

If you are interested, this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418625) was started a while back and had some good discussion by a few of us. We discussed taxation a great deal. Alien Born proposed a system where government begins to operate as a business and starts to fund itself. I even argued for a progressive income tax, which probably surprises you, considering some of my comments on taxation in this thread. The thread has been dead for about a week, but you could check out some of the discussion, maybe add some fresh light on it.

I would like to agree with this...but show me any tax in history that has satisfied any two or more of these conditions first...

Unfortunately, I know that I can't, and I sincerely doubt that anyone else can either.

I agree with the second part, but believe that it is inextricable from the first.
Give someone the "right" to forcibly take someone elses money, and you can guarantee that they wont use it as efficiently as the rightful owner.
Oh sure, you might take someones drug money and spend it on something more useful, but there will always be more taken from those who earn more, unless the tax is ridiculously regressive; and those who earn more know how to handle money better than those who earn less. They will use it more efficiently, in ways that best increase growth, efficiency, security(the rich desire this more than most...hence treasury bonds), and other good things.
Even if a few fail to do so, a majority of the taxes taken will be used in ways that are less beneficial than the default alternatives.

Of course, if the government stuck to its actual constitutional limitations...It could pay for everything with a infintesimal fraction of its current budget. Probably with voluntary fees(for certain services, like judicial, etc.) even.

Or maybe like it does in Jennifer Government...hehe-Privatize Everything!

The old saying "If you want something done right, do it yourself" is about as true as any statement ever made. That is the way government should be run, with the private individual handling his own interests on his own, with government providing those things that the individual cannot possible handle on his own.

As for privatising everything, that would be an utopian anarchy. Everyone to freely live as they see fit, their only limitations being that which imposes on others. It is the capitalists dream, unfortunately anarchy is being hijacked by communists who think they can mold people into accepting a yoke and chain.

No, "From each his ability, to each his need" does not value the individual at all. It states that the person works for the whole, and the whole makes sure he survives.

In capitalism it is "From each a chosen amount of utility, to each a value equal to that utility provided." In other words, the individual decides how much he values his labor and sells it to the employer. There is free choice.

In capitalism the individual casts himself into the machine to work as a gear, and the employer pays him for his input into the machine. In communism, it is assumed that the individual is a gear, and the government just makes sure that the gear continues to function.

Society will always have roles that need to be filled. Communism forces people into those roles, capitalism allows them to choose.

Elaboration-I was referring to "Laissez-Faire" Capitalism and "Stalinist" Communism, and really how they are almost the same(In effect).

Let me explain: Under the most extreme forms of Communism, the means of production and resources used are controlled by a small group of people. Everybody else is used as labor, and are more-or less "slaves". They are the cogs of the machine.

However, under the most extreme forms of Capitalism(Laissez-Faire), the exact same is true. The means of production and resources are controlled by relatively few people, and everybody else is used as a cog in a machine. They are treated basically as slaves.

Take, for example, the late 1800's, early 1900's of America, in which you earned only a few cents an hour(Roughly 2 dollars an hour in todays currency). Not only this, but you were forced to work 14 hour days, in dangerous environment, and if you get hurt on job, suck it or you're gone. You get an arm chopped off? Oh well. NEXT! Also, children were used in some of the more dangerous areas because you could then pay them more than 50% less than an adult. People were treated basically as cogs in the machine.

This happens today as well, where a business will set up sweatshops in various parts of the world to DRASTICALLY cut the amount it spends on production by using, in essence, slave labor.

Basically: Different ideals, same effect. They may be set up under different phylosophies, but the overall effect is the same.

Let me explain: Under the most extreme forms of Communism, the means of production and resources used are controlled by a small group of people. Everybody else is used as labor, and are more-or less "slaves". They are the cogs of the machine.


This is true.


However, under the most extreme forms of Capitalism(Laissez-Faire), the exact same is true. The means of production and resources are controlled by relatively few people, and everybody else is used as a cog in a machine. They are treated basically as slaves.


This is false. Under laissez-faire capitalism, nobody is a slave. The cogs which you refer to in Stalinist society are forced by law to work for nothing or very little. The whole idea of laissez-faire capitalism is that this is impossible, because it is illegal to force anybody to work for you unless the terms are mutually agreed. Furthermore, the means of production in modern capitalist society don't necessarily fall into the hands of a tiny bourgeois minority either. Thousands upon thousands of people hold shares in PLCs and the like, and besides, nobody is prevented from establishing their own enterprise independant of any employer if they think they can make a better living by doing so.


Basically: Different ideals, same effect. They may be set up under different phylosophies, but the overall effect is the same.

Well, as far as I can see, the overall effects of the two systems have been radically different. The net result of Stalinism was several million dead people and a nation which still suffers from a pretty poor standard of living over 50 years after the particular regime ceased.

The overall effect of laissez-faire capitalist attitudes to the economy and society has been an array of some of the wealthiest, most successful nations in human history, which vast masses of people from other countries routinely risk life and limb in order to immigrate to, and where even the desperately poor struggle against obesity.

But why should the lazy people deserve the same as me, a hard-working man? I am strongly against Communism. The smaller the government the better. Honestly, If I lived in a communist nation, I would work as little as possible because I would be getting the same as everyone else, and so would many of you, even if you refuse to admit it.

Yep, me too. I work hard now. I wouldn't if I didn't get more than average for working hard. Atlas Shrugged. I'm not Atlas, but what little I am carrying would get shrugged off and I'd ride.

Money was the greatest invention mankind ever made. It freed serfs from fuedalism and allowed us to exchange the fruits of our abilities with one another easily and efficiently.

Pure Capitalism will never work because there will always be needs in society that must be shared, like roads and defense. But Capitalism is FAIR. In America, ANYONE can be successful if they have ability and ambition.

-Tom Steele

The overall effect of laissez-faire capitalist attitudes to the economy and society has been an array of some of the wealthiest, most successful nations in human history, which vast masses of people from other countries routinely risk life and limb in order to immigrate to, and where even the desperately poor struggle against obesity.

You think that our economy is Laissez-faire? No. We have a rather vigorously controlled economy, with rules and regulations. We did have a laissez-faire economy, but almost a century ago. When we did, the work conditions were rather similar to those of Stalinist Communism.

People were paid BARELY enough to eat, because they were forced to. Not by people, but by conditions. Nobody wants to starve to death, after all, so by conditions they were forced to work for near-nothing wages. There were also no opportunities to move out of a station of life-you pretty much worked in the same shit-hole your entire life. Your kids were going to do the same. Only your kids got paid less. Under Laissez-Faire Economy, the effect is almost exactly the same as Stalinist Communism.

Only a few people controlling resources and means of production, horrible pay(Just enough to eat, basically), horrible working conditions(No laws to regulate safety-and since those with economic power don't want to pay more, they won't. Hapened all the time), and no possibility of advancement.

Only when the government step in did our economy become something enviable. Also, all mass-migrations before our current economy were do to very extreme situations, such as MASSIVE poverty in China or Famine in Ireland.

Note I am saying that the underlying effect of Laissez-Faire(WHICH IS NOT OUR CURRENT ECONOMY FOR GOD'S SAKE) and Stalinist Communism are the exact same. You seem to think, for some unknown reason, that America is currently Laissez-Faire, which it is most definately is not.

Ok, I am going to try to answer as much as I can that has been said since my last post. However I currently working 15 hours a day for the past 3 days and getting 3.5 hours of sleep. So please excuse me if I do not succeed.

Elaboration-I was referring to "Laissez-Faire" Capitalism and "Stalinist" Communism, and really how they are almost the same(In effect).

Let me explain: Under the most extreme forms of Communism, the means of production and resources used are controlled by a small group of people. Everybody else is used as labor, and are more-or less "slaves". They are the cogs of the machine.

However, under the most extreme forms of Capitalism(Laissez-Faire), the exact same is true. The means of production and resources are controlled by relatively few people, and everybody else is used as a cog in a machine. They are treated basically as slaves.

Take, for example, the late 1800's, early 1900's of America, in which you earned only a few cents an hour(Roughly 2 dollars an hour in todays currency). Not only this, but you were forced to work 14 hour days, in dangerous environment, and if you get hurt on job, suck it or you're gone. You get an arm chopped off? Oh well. NEXT! Also, children were used in some of the more dangerous areas because you could then pay them more than 50% less than an adult. People were treated basically as cogs in the machine.

This happens today as well, where a business will set up sweatshops in various parts of the world to DRASTICALLY cut the amount it spends on production by using, in essence, slave labor.

Basically: Different ideals, same effect. They may be set up under different phylosophies, but the overall effect is the same.

I could not disagree much more with your post. First off, many of the points about child labor, etc. can be answered quite quickly in the FAQ section of capitalism.org . This is an awesome site and I highly recommend it to both capitalists, and anti-capitalists, as solid information defending and promoting capitalism(anti-capitalists can use it to better understand the other side. I frequent many socialist sites for this purpose).

However, I do recognize the base idea of what you are trying to say, and I believe that Ronald Reagan said it much better


Our free mkt. system is usually termed capitalism and by that definition capitalism has hardly been around long enough to deserve all the evil for which it is being held responsible.

Most of us aren’t really conscious of how recently the capitalist system came into being. Possibly we look back & think of the extravagant luxury of kings & emperors & see that as capitalism. We have a modern counterpart today in the rulers of Marxist nations. The ruling hierarchy of the Soviet U. live on a scale more akin to royalty than do the heads of capitalist countries.

Maybe our trouble is caused by the term capitalist itself. Actually all systems are capitalist. It’s just a matter of who owns & controls the capital–ancient king, dictator or private individual. We should properly be looking at the contrast between a free mkt. system where individuals have the right to live like kings if they can have the ability to earn that right and govt. control of the mkt. system such as we find today in socialist nations.

The meat of this quote, is found at the very end of it, starting with "Actually".

Seangolia, please tell me what you think. I am pretty sure you wont agree completely, but perhaps you will see the similarity that I saw at least.

It will work!!!!!!!

But only if done on a global scale.

My idea:

Initially, the world decides that it should have an all powerful leadership that can do whatever they want. (I don't know how, but) the world would vote in about 200-400 representatives from different countries, and with many different beliefs. These people will be there on a voluntary bases, with their interests in the protection of the earth. THEY WILL NOT BE PAIED!!!!!!!! Money is the source of corruption. They will live at a special place where they have access to food, entertainment, etc. They will have no need for money as they get everything they need from there. There will be a "democratic (and i use this term loosely)" government, but only within itself. There will be no leader and no opposition etc. There will be a speaker and several groups that specialise in things. There will be no majority group.

After they are voted in, they will have ultimate power. They will make the worldly decisions and have supreme control. (Current governments will still work sort of. They would have less power though.) The group will be a dictatorship, but it will be in their interests to help the earth!! The press will have NO ACCESS to them. The press always twists the truth.

There will be no war, because it is a dictatorship. When a member dies, the rest of the group will vote for another from candidates who express a "want" to help the earth. This is because the general public are idiots, and should not be allowed to make essential decisions.

It will take a few years for the group to settle and either bring more people in or get rid of some. But after this time it should function as a good communist dictatorship.

Ha.
Ha Ha.
Ha Ha.
Ha.
Ha-Oh, wait, were you actually serious?

Ha. Ha.

In your own respected opinion, will communism ever work? Why do you think like that? If not, then why not, and if so then why will it work? Just trying to see where everyone stands on this issue. Three well thought out ideas about the pro's and cons would be good also.

It is based on the fact that all humans, when free to do as the please will work for the benefit of the whole race. This, of course, is not ture, as Stalin showed us. It would not function without some other system controlling the people of the nation, such 'big brother' overhead would make it finanacially unpractical until automated mind controlling implants were created and perfected. Of course, then there is the moral issue.

Ok, I am going to try to answer as much as I can that has been said since my last post. However I currently working 15 hours a day for the past 3 days and getting 3.5 hours of sleep. So please excuse me if I do not succeed.



I could not disagree much more with your post. First off, many of the points about child labor, etc. can be answered quite quickly in the FAQ section of capitalism.org . This is an awesome site and I highly recommend it to both capitalists, and anti-capitalists, as solid information defending and promoting capitalism(anti-capitalists can use it to better understand the other side. I frequent many socialist sites for this purpose).

However, I do recognize the base idea of what you are trying to say, and I believe that Ronald Reagan said it much better


The meat of this quote, is found at the very end of it, starting with "Actually".

Seangolia, please tell me what you think. I am pretty sure you wont agree completely, but perhaps you will see the similarity that I saw at least.

I'd like to point out that I'm not Anti-Capitalism. I am anti-Laissezfaire. I have no problem with Capitalism, but laissez-faire is an extreme form which is destructive and dangerous. I will also check out the website, when I have more time.

Basically, the point was comparing the two of the most extreme forms of each type of economy, not the two forms of Economy as a whole.

Under Laissez-faire, conditions were quite similar to Stalinist Communism. However, thankfully, laissez-faire is not used. I agree, all people should have the right to live like kings if they work for it: But under Laissez Faire and Stalinist Communism, only a few people live like kings, and those who don't never will.

Note that on paper Laissez-Faire and Communism are vastly different from one another. However, in practice they have the same ends, only under different ideals.

I know I'm not the greatest with words, but I'm hoping my thoughts are becoming clearer.

Very good post Dogburg. Score one more for the region!

I have a feeling he was using a little reverse reasoning. He decided he didn't like capitalism and worked backwards trying to justify his dislike for it. Because of this he invented faulty reasons with mathematics that he didn't think to second guess.

Good old reverse reasoning...Hasn't failed yet...


I have no doubt that America will never see a slave system again (don't ask the communists, they will say we still have one). Like I said, that comes from our learning to respect other races as equal than it does from respecting property rights.

Agreed. But I also believe that capitalism would have ultimately destroyed slavery in the american south-as it did in the North.(dont forget that slavery had existed from the dawn of civilization. The Bible, and many other ancient books make references to slave use). I once found a very good article on this, but I have failed in relocating it; sorry!
Basically it stressed that slaves were less efficient than hired labor, in the capacities that slaves had to be constantly watched(could not be trusted), would only perform physical labor(no innovation), and still had to be cared for(costs of food, medical, shelter). This is in addition to the costs of keeping them at home, and a decent standing military to keep them from revolting.
Just dont forget that slavery was very accepted in the northern colonies, and the states gradually ended it on their own.
All in all, I believe this part of American History stands as ample proof that the majority is not always right. The majority has no "divine right" to do whatever it pleases.


I agree that as long as there are taxes, there will be problems with pork barrel spending. And like you said, a democracy is especially troublesome, as politicians will try to buy votes by bringing large amounts of unnecessary money to their home regions.

I believe you may have misunderstood me. While I certainly agree that Pork is a serious problem, for the reasons you stated and more, I wasn't talking about it specifically. The main problem with Pork spending is that some people pay, and others benefit.
This also applies to the entire tax structure of the US however. The article I linked explains how a minority of people pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes in the US, but suffrage is granted to anyone. Therefore there is a significant amount of people who, rationally acting in their own self-interest, are motivated to encourage government spending. This is because they gain more from this spending than they lose from the taxes required. However, there is no gain across the board. The money must come from somewhere, and it comes from those who pay the majority of taxes, but have an equal say in how it is spent with someone who pays nothing(or next to nothing).
How can it be "fair" that someone who pays over half their income in taxes/etc. has an equal say with someone who pays 0-10%(EI tax credit anyone?), in how the money is spent? How is it "fair" that someone who pays billions into a public budget has equal say in the expenses as someone who pays under 20,000 in taxes
(myself for example. I pay about 1/6 of my income($6.00 per hour, minus ~$1 in taxes) in payroll taxes, most of it for Social Security and Medicare, which "technically" are supposed to be returned to me someday)?


If you are interested, this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418625) was started a while back and had some good discussion by a few of us. We discussed taxation a great deal. Alien Born proposed a system where government begins to operate as a business and starts to fund itself. I even argued for a progressive income tax, which probably surprises you, considering some of my comments on taxation in this thread. The thread has been dead for about a week, but you could check out some of the discussion, maybe add some fresh light on it.

Perhaps in a little while. Currently this thread is using most of the time I set aside for this pupose. When work slows down at my main job, and I get settled in my other job, I should have more time to do so.



Unfortunately, I know that I can't, and I sincerely doubt that anyone else can either.

As do I


The old saying "If you want something done right, do it yourself" is about as true as any statement ever made. That is the way government should be run, with the private individual handling his own interests on his own, with government providing those things that the individual cannot possible handle on his own.

A very good book I recommend is called "Cliches of Socialism". It has a chapter on government providing of "services". Very good read-can be read a chapter at a time in any order, (kind of like Chicken soup books.)


As for privatising everything, that would be an utopian anarchy.
This is the subject of "Jennifer Government". While I disagree with some of the theory, its still a good read.


Everyone to freely live as they see fit, their only limitations being that which imposes on others.
The core libertarian philosophy here. I really dont logically see how anyone can (logically) disagree with it.


It is the capitalists dream, unfortunately anarchy is being hijacked by communists who think they can mold people into accepting a yoke and chain.
the commies didnt really have to hijack anything...Anarchy is a socialism of the strong, where anyone owns anything they are strong enough to take. No property rights, or really any rights, can exist when they may be violated by anyone strong enough to use force and get away with it.
Personally, I would hate anarchy, no matter how "utopian" it was designed as.


Yep, me too. I work hard now. I wouldn't if I didn't get more than average for working hard. Atlas Shrugged. I'm not Atlas, but what little I am carrying would get shrugged off and I'd ride.

Money was the greatest invention mankind ever made. It freed serfs from fuedalism and allowed us to exchange the fruits of our abilities with one another easily and efficiently.

But Capitalism is FAIR. In America, ANYONE can be successful if they have ability and ambition.

-Tom Steele
Agree completely with what I quoted. Nice post!

You think that our economy is Laissez-faire? No. We have a rather vigorously controlled economy, with rules and regulations.
Ever wonder why the economy seems to get worse the more it is regulated? The great depression for example, set up and orchestrated by Federal Reserve policies based on the following theory: the money supply must be adjusted to reflect the changes in the market. So when the economy was going up, they increased the money supply, when it started to fall, they made it fall HARD by severely contracting the money supply. Then they continued to do so as it worsened further. They even caused a second crash in 1936-37, by suddenly and substantially increasing reserve requirements. Hoover tried to fix it by demolishing international trade. FDR tried to remedy it by tripling taxes and regulating the hell out of anybody dumb enough to try to employ anyone. All of his regulations on the stock market were supposed to encourage investment, but did the opposite instead. The regulations on businesses were supposed to protect workers, consumers, etc. But instead the businesses failed, the workers lost jobs, and the consumers were hurt too. Meanwhile his attempts to "help" businesses by driving up prices, etc; hurt more than they helped. Proof? Henry Ford did better than those businesses who joined FDR's "alphabet soup", despite a lack of subsidies to Ford, a loss of all government-Ford contracts, and damning government statements about him.

And just look at the direct results of the regulatory laws passed after the Enron/WorldCom scandals.

As to the rest of your post Seangolia, take a look at how life was before the industrial revolution. A significant majority of people barely had enough to eat, if that. Entire families worked 16 hour days on farms, the children starting as soon as possible. Peasants were basically owned by their lords, and a minority of people ruled the country in luxury. Why/How? By right of their birth and bloodline. No one else could rise, and it was very difficult for them to fall.


Isn't Capitalism responsible for children working in factories?
Children working in factories was only a transitory stage between early feudalism and capitalism. Prior to working in factories, before capitalism, many of children (and their parents) used to die and starve, as evidenced by the high infant mortality statistics before capitalism. Observe that is was not until families left the "country" and went into the "cities" that they were able to produce enough food to eat. The clearest evidence of this is population and infant mortality statistics: population did not go up, and infant mortality did not go down, until the Industrial Revolution. If life was so great before capitalism in the "country", why was infant mortality so high and population numbers considerably lower before capitalism? Answer: because life was not so great until Capitalism.

What halted child labor in factories?
Throughout history the parents of most families could not produce enough to support their families without having their children work also (such was the case of my father in India). It was the accumulation capital by the industrialists that made the labor of parents more productive, that children had to stop working in fields or factories. In poor non-capitalist countries they are still working in fields and factories.

Contrary to leftist rhetoric passing child labor laws in these countries will not solve the problem, but will only lead to mass starvation -- which is why the "poor" themselves resist such laws (it is only to the benefit of the leftist "rich" "humanitarians" who cry out for them).

and now, I must go to bed....
Thanks to all for the wonderful discussion.
Sorry if I tend to be excessive.

PS-the nation "Nikitas" has been inactive for a few days. I believe that he simply hasnt seen our posts since his last one yet.

You think that our economy is Laissez-faire? No. We have a rather vigorously controlled economy, with rules and regulations.

I wasn't saying the current western systems were totally L.F (I'm from Britain and we actually have more socialism than you yanks do), but generally attitudes towards the economy in places like the UK, the USA and other such successful western countries have been ones which embrace private ownership of the vast majority of utilities, services and businesses. This is a capitalist idea.

Communism as a basic concept is flawed, in that people will not work hard if there is no immediate benifit to them for doing so. That said, pure capitalism is also far from perfect, in that the lower classes often end up downtrodden and powerless.

I personally beleive that a constant refinement of the basically capitalist systems we have today with maybe a *slight* shift in a socialist direction is the best way to go. Surely this keeps all the advantages of capitalism and makes an attempt to deal with its problems. This seems to be what the most successful governments do today, so I don't really understand how people can advocate extremist views like communism or what I'd call 'unrefined capitalism'.

A welfare system in the US is an absolute necessity. Capitalism makes the rich/poor divide extremely wide. It's why less than 1% of the people in the United States controls 90% of the money.

I always offer to take people on a road trip through the Ozarks if they think Capitalism makes everyone able to bootstrap themselves to success. I can show you that if you have a roof over your head (never mind electricity, running water, and shoes) then you're better off than nearly 15% of the United States.

This "silent minority" relies so heavily on the kindness of strangers not abolishing the welfare system in the United States that they've become slaves to the very thing that we think gives us freedom - our imagined god-given right to personal property. Something our Founding Fathers called "inalienable", the right to property, is so far out of reach for so many people in the United States that I can only dry heave with rage about it.

[/rant]


Your point is?

20% of the US population pays 80% of the taxes the Government collects for said programs. So that means the 80% of the population pays only 20% of the taxes the government collects.

You anology of the Ozarks is qauint, but this is not the 1920's. I have family that lives in the Ozarks and they might not be well off but they have everything they want. There neighbors are in the same boat, they choose to live there and live that way. No one is holding them down and keeping them from moving up to what some would call a better life. I enjoy visiting with them it is a breath of fresh air to be free of the comforts of modern life for a few weeks. I would never choose to live that way forever though that is my choice. Every American has the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness, that does not mean your definition of Pursuit of happiness is someone elses either.

Every American has the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness, that does not mean your definition of Pursuit of happiness is someone elses either.

Really? Then what happened during the McCarthyism era?

Plus, Communism is not as the kind of tinpot dictatorship the people in the West belive it is, because Communism is not a trully political philosophy, rather an economical one. Karl Marx even said that it is fine to have a democratic Communist State, but it's just that many Communist countries preferred a more Authoritarian approach than a Libertarian belief.

I really like the part where you guys (capitalists, I presume) go like "whoever pays more taxes, should have more voting power". You guys crank me up. Never had a history lesson, I think. Don't you know, that before suffrage was free (yes, those days existed), voting was determined by sex and/or wealth. The industrialists at the time were all for voting, but they all seemed convinced that "it's more than logical" that "whoever contributes more to society" should get even more power than they already have.

And also the part: "ANYONE can make it in a capitalist society" (those two words don't mix, by the way, but hey), "if they have enough ambition and ability". Hah! FYI, the "if" part of that credo is where the shit hits the fan. Seeing as how the economy determines your "ability" (never mind your ambition), whole parts of the society ("society", as in, "all the people") are deemed useless for all the wrong reasons (not enough money to be a capitalist themselves, not enough money to consume, not the rights skills, not the right culture, etc.)

A society should be concerned about all involved, not just the ones that have money. All participants in said society should have a say in the society, not just the ones that earn money. "Working" is not the same as earning money - get that into your thick skulls. (My aunt never worked for money, yet raised two sons, makes knitwear for refugees and saved a cat from a burning house. Yup, she never worked, that's right *sigh*) Furthermore, a society should allow all citizens to live their life the way they want it, not have the ones that have money and want to consume direct the rest. Maybe we can have "pockets", where capitalists can practice rampant growth all day long in one pocket, and another one where a more community-based program for the less needy is applied. That way we can all be happy, perhaps? It's the most liberal solution, I think...

And also, there is something you all must consider. It is called the 'Mattheus'-effect. Consider the fact that society is made up of groups of people that pay variable relative amounts of taxes. Now, the part of society that pays the most taxes just gets a relatively small part of those taxes returned - you all presumed that already. There's also a group of people (the middle class, mostly, both upper and lower) that pay a relatively large amount of taxes, but gets a lot returned as well - they typically have more children than the poorer part of the population, make more use of government-funded public facilities and instances (like public swimming pools, parks, roads, governmental agencies), etc. The poorer part pay the least amount of taxes, but get a significantly smaller overall amount than the middle-class, mostly due to familial and social circumstances. If I ever find the link to the statistical evidence to support, I'll post it here. But believe me, it's true.

To sum up:
- the rich pay a lot, and get less in return RELATIVELY but still a large amount ABSOLUTELY. And why the hell not - they get to be rich, they still have WAY more money than the rest of society
- the middle class pays a certain amount, gets almost the same amount RELATIVELY in return but overall a bit more ABSOLUTELY than the rich and a lot more ABOSLUTELY than the poor due to lifestyle and social environment
- the poor class pay the least amount, and get RELATIVELY more in return but ABSOLUTELY a lot less than the rich and the middle class.

So there, the needy are NOT sucking you poor, rich people dry. Far from it.

It might be worth noting that the powerhouses of capitalism, companies, are communist entities: every member of the company (employees) are given tasks according to their ability. If their ability has further, undeveloped potential, they are sent to training. They are each given the necessary resources and manpower to effectively accomplish their task.
Some larger companies have more members than small countries, and yet this communism works in them. Surely the same priniciple could be applied to a society rather than an enterprise?

It might be worth noting that the powerhouses of capitalism, companies, are communist entities: every member of the company (employees) are given tasks according to their ability. If their ability has further, undeveloped potential, they are sent to training. They are each given the necessary resources and manpower to effectively accomplish their task.
Some larger companies have more members than small countries, and yet this communism works in them. Surely the same priniciple could be applied to a society rather than an enterprise?

Simple answer: Yes.

Surely the same priniciple could be applied to a society rather than an enterprise?

You mean like not electing your leaders? Yes, that can be done. And companies/enterprises are missing that "tiny little detail" we call elected representation, and are therefore not communist. That was one of the reasons the whole revolution started in the first place - to make sure the companies would be run by elected officials. Sadly, it all went downhill when some bozo stated "you know, it might be best to adopt a transitional system to deal with, um, other nations" and whoops there goes democracy.

The principal cannot be applied to countries, as large companies have reached the position they are in through natural selection - by being in constant competition with other companies, only the strongest survive to reach that position. This doesn't exist if you take a whole country, as there is no competition.

Also, the companies aren't communist - there are great incentives to work, like the possiblility of promotion or the chance of a pay rise which don't exist in a purely communist country.

The principal cannot be applied to countries, as large companies have reached the position they are in through natural selection - by being in constant competition with other companies, only the strongest survive to reach that position. This doesn't exist if you take a whole country, as there is no competition.

Not entirely true - there was a time when lots of "nations" (didn't exist then like they do now, but hey) fought amongst eachother for political and economic power, they really were "in competition to survive". For instance, during fuedalism (both in Europe as in Japan) the great number of struggling regions finally were united through absolutist government, and the creation of "the state", which originated from one of these regions that eventually grew in power enough to usurp its neighbours. Read Norbert Elias' "Uber den Prozess der Zivilisation", I think the first part especially, for this.

I believe you may have misunderstood me. While I certainly agree that Pork is a serious problem, for the reasons you stated and more, I wasn't talking about it specifically. The main problem with Pork spending is that some people pay, and others benefit.
This also applies to the entire tax structure of the US however. The article I linked explains how a minority of people pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes in the US, but suffrage is granted to anyone. Therefore there is a significant amount of people who, rationally acting in their own self-interest, are motivated to encourage government spending. This is because they gain more from this spending than they lose from the taxes required. However, there is no gain across the board. The money must come from somewhere, and it comes from those who pay the majority of taxes, but have an equal say in how it is spent with someone who pays nothing(or next to nothing).
How can it be "fair" that someone who pays over half their income in taxes/etc. has an equal say with someone who pays 0-10%(EI tax credit anyone?), in how the money is spent? How is it "fair" that someone who pays billions into a public budget has equal say in the expenses as someone who pays under 20,000 in taxes
(myself for example. I pay about 1/6 of my income($6.00 per hour, minus ~$1 in taxes) in payroll taxes, most of it for Social Security and Medicare, which "technically" are supposed to be returned to me someday)?

While I agree that there is a great deal of wealth redistribution, and that it is unethical, redistributing voting power to match it is the worst thing you could do. The only thing that can be done is to make all moves to insure that the people paying taxes get a fair return from government.


the commies didnt really have to hijack anything...Anarchy is a socialism of the strong, where anyone owns anything they are strong enough to take. No property rights, or really any rights, can exist when they may be violated by anyone strong enough to use force and get away with it.
Personally, I would hate anarchy, no matter how "utopian" it was designed as.

By anarchy, I mean more or less an elimination of political power. Not directly an elimination of government. I am assuming that private citizens would maintain their rights without the presence of government through private arbitration and private law enforcement. That may be unattainable, but a government that exists solely to provide contract settlement and enforcement would be probably the only workable chance at anarchy.

It might be worth noting that the powerhouses of capitalism, companies, are communist entities: every member of the company (employees) are given tasks according to their ability. If their ability has further, undeveloped potential, they are sent to training. They are each given the necessary resources and manpower to effectively accomplish their task.

Sorry, but, assuming communists are correct, capitalism and communism does not differ in the labor provided, it differs in the compensation for the labor. Capitalist economies, like the corporations you are talking about, offer a fair market value in exchange for labor. Communist economies offer the ability to live in exchange for labor.

Surely the same priniciple could be applied to a society rather than an enterprise?

You are correct, the same principle could be applied and is applied. The labor force works for the corporation, in return getting fair wages. The labor force can choose to consume the wages, or it can choose to save his wages and pool his past labor, which he can use to purchase a portion of the corporation.

While I agree that there is a great deal of wealth redistribution, and that it is unethical, redistributing voting power to match it is the worst thing you could do. The only thing that can be done is to make all moves to insure that the people paying taxes get a fair return from government.

Is this really how capitalists think? Redistribution of wealth is "unethical"? Ensuring a "fair return" for those who pay taxes? (Read my post on the Mattheus-effect for that, though) This is incredible... it's really all about "me, me, me" isn't it? "EVERYBODY else is stealing MY hard-earned cash right underneath MY nose"... I, well... I really can't find the words. I can't believe this. This spits in the face of two hundred years of historical changes. I'm glad you at least believe the "redistributing voting power to match wealth" thing "the worst idea"...

Is this really how capitalists think? Redistribution of wealth is "unethical"? Ensuring a "fair return" for those who pay taxes? (Read my post on the Mattheus-effect for that, though) This is incredible... it's really all about "me, me, me" isn't it? "EVERYBODY else is stealing MY hard-earned cash right underneath MY nose"... I, well... I really can't find the words. I can't believe this. This spits in the face of two hundred years of historical changes. I'm glad you at least believe the "redistributing voting power to match wealth" thing "the worst idea"...

You are an excitable lad aren't you?

1. You don't know anything about me. You don't know if I am generous, you don't know if I am stingy. Don't jump to conclusions that have absolutely no base.

2. Secondly, capitalists are not about "me, me, me", we want fair and equal treatment to all people. We want people to be able to make a choice about how their labor is used, and how their compensation for labor is used.

When I work I expend my labor for my employer, in return he gives me capital to use in the form of wages. Therefore, wages are inseperable from labor. When efforts are made by government to take wages away from one person and to give them away to another, they are in effect making one person turn over his labor to another. When one person works for the sole benefit of another, it is slavery. That is why wealth redistribution is unethical.

3. You question my motivation to make all taxes fair, and to make sure that people receive far compensation for the taxes paid, yet this Mattheus-effect is a justification for fair taxes. Don't switch principles to try and make a point.

(Just so you know, there have been several instances where I have defended a graduated income tax)

You mean like not electing your leaders? Yes, that can be done. And companies/enterprises are missing that "tiny little detail" we call elected representation, and are therefore not communist

Communism is an economic system, not a political one. You can have any mix of economic and political systems, including a democratic communism and a totalitarian capitalism.
Additionally, the leaders of companies are elected by their shareholders, who put the best person in place - in exactly the same way that national polls are held, if you were to make the shareholders the employees (which something successful firms seem intent on doing).

The principal cannot be applied to countries, as large companies have reached the position they are in through natural selection - by being in constant competition with other companies, only the strongest survive to reach that position. This doesn't exist if you take a whole country, as there is no competition.

Ah, but countries do compete. As fiercely as companies might. They too want to be the best. Some countries do well, others not so. This thread isn't so much about equality of nations as it is about the best way to run a country relative to its neighbours. And using a proven enterprise-modelled system to do so seems like an effective way to do this.

I really like the part where you guys (capitalists, I presume) go like "whoever pays more taxes, should have more voting power". You guys crank me up. Never had a history lesson, I think. Don't you know, that before suffrage was free (yes, those days existed), voting was determined by sex and/or wealth. The industrialists at the time were all for voting, but they all seemed convinced that "it's more than logical" that "whoever contributes more to society" should get even more power than they already have.

Sorry if you misunderstood me. I did not mean to come off that way. What I meant was that it is not right that someone who pays a ridiculous amount of taxes should have almost no say in how it is spent. This is what I said-But my solution is to take much less taxes, and have strict guidelines in how it is spent. The constitution was supposed to do this-but then we have a political court to "interpret" it. Example: classifying a farmer growing corn to feed his own hogs as "interstate commerce" and therefore regulatable by the federal government.
If the poorer voters were not permitted to vote themselves government services and "benefits" with someone elses money, then I would have absolutely nothing against equal suffrage. But I still think that someone who pays NO taxes should not be able to vote. This includes those who are given more in government cash payouts than they pay in taxes(after refunds).
And the tax structure should also be flatter.



It might be worth noting that the powerhouses of capitalism, companies, are communist entities: every member of the company (employees) are given tasks according to their ability. If their ability has further, undeveloped potential, they are sent to training. They are each given the necessary resources and manpower to effectively accomplish their task.
Some larger companies have more members than small countries, and yet this communism works in them. Surely the same priniciple could be applied to a society rather than an enterprise?

Right, but also wrong. The employees are paid according to their ability(/productivity) as well. And if they are not satisfied, they can leave-unlike communist states.

This is not communist in any way. The President of the company makes more than the lower workers. and working is voluntary-you will only get fired if you do not want to work(not shot).

Sorry if you misunderstood me. I did not mean to come off that way. What I meant was that it is not right that someone who pays a ridiculous amount of taxes should have almost no say in how it is spent. This is what I said-But my solution is to take much less taxes, and have strict guidelines in how it is spent. The constitution was supposed to do this-but then we have a political court to "interpret" it. Example: classifying a farmer growing corn to feed his own hogs as "interstate commerce" and therefore regulatable by the federal government.
If the poorer voters were not permitted to vote themselves government services and "benefits" with someone elses money, then I would have absolutely nothing against equal suffrage. But I still think that someone who pays NO taxes should not be able to vote. This includes those who are given more in government cash payouts than they pay in taxes(after refunds).
And the tax structure should also be flatter.





Right, but also wrong. The employees are paid according to their ability(/productivity) as well. And if they are not satisfied, they can leave-unlike communist states.

This is not communist in any way. The President of the company makes more than the lower workers. and working is voluntary-you will only get fired if you do not want to work(not shot).

I can see where you are going with your first point. It is a very good point. However, there is one problem with it, and that is opportunity. To illustrate this, I shall break the poorer-section into two categories:

1.Lazy poor People(LPP)
2.Hardworking Poor People(HPP)

Now, through my personal experience, a great deal of people who get government support are part of the LPP. They don't work, and what work they do is usually out of their convenience. These are the ones that tend to live off of Welfare. Do these people deserve what they get for free? No, not really. These are the people who abuse the system. These are the people who don't really care about much of anything beyond their freebies. I think these are the people whom you are more aiming towards.

However, there are also the HPP. These people are the ones who will end up working 2-3 jobs just to get by. They are the ones that try and elevate themselves. These are the ones that work to the bone trying to make a better life for themselves. They tend to be the ones born out of opportunity. The ones that if given a break, can do a great deal for the community. These people are the ones that certain programs are aimed for.

Of course, the same is true for the opposite end:

1.Lazy Rich People(The Paris Hilton's of the world who are rich because their family is)
2.Hardworking Rich People(The Bill Gates' of the world, who start from nothing and build an empire so to speak, with their sweat and blood)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for your second point, it is true that it is necessarily communist. However, there can exist a communism in which the work you do is voluntary, not compulsory. It's not necessarily against communism to be so, just totalitarian communism(Which is how communism is protrayed most commonly).

Communism creates a power vaccuum into which dictators slip every time. Someone needs to requisition the resources, and since there's no market to do so there end up being a handful of party members taking on the 'burden' of handling all of the country's assets.

Also authorities are very good at taking people's stuff but never seem all that good at handing it back out equally (big surprise). For instance while 6 million Ukrainian peasants starved to death in 1933 the USSR exported 900,000 tons of grain. All their food was taken and nothing was given back. Apparently the government forgot the "...to those according to their needs" part.

Strangest thing about Communism was that their shit always malfunctioned due to factory errors. Even $1 billion nuclear subs were made wrong and had tons of accidents due to very simple design flaws. Not sure why that happened.

Of course it will work, eventually. If not communism, then some sort of socialism. Eventually people will realize that they aren't getting paid what they deserve and at that point capitalism will be obsolete. Capitalism is barbaric, corrupt, and blatantly oppressive. In a socialist state, everyone would make their fair share (besides the fact that most of this "fair share" will go to the government), while at the same time the wealthy would help prop up such things as universal healthcare and universal mass transit.
The only problem with this logic is that too many people do not want to give up capitalism. To do away with capitalism you have to do away with greed, and I don't see that happening any time soon...

Communism can't even begin to work until it actually recognizes the myriad different society levels they ignore.

There's a hell of a lot more going on in economics than "Factory Owners vs. Factory Workers."

Freelance exists.

Middle Management exists.

Self-owned business exists.

Family-owned business exists.

Partnerships exist.


Communism is an economic theory written by a guy who studied LITERATURE, not ECONOMICS.

You may as well turn to Moby Dick.

this has to be another quick post:

Seangolia, I wasnt really talking about the American poor...More like anyone in the bottom 80% of income. 50,000 per year is not even close to poor, but it isnt in the top 20% either. This means that, unless the government plays favorites in a extreme and obvious manner, those in the bottom 80% will get more than their fair share of government "benefits", goods, and services.

Welfare, however, is one of the most obviously immoral uses of tax money.
A simple choice must be offered to the "poor"-recieve welfare or keep your right to vote.
I can see where you are going with your first point. It is a very good point. However, there is one problem with it, and that is opportunity. To illustrate this, I shall break the poorer-section into two categories:

1.Lazy poor People(LPP)
2.Hardworking Poor People(HPP)

Now, through my personal experience, a great deal of people who get government support are part of the LPP. They don't work, and what work they do is usually out of their convenience. These are the ones that tend to live off of Welfare. Do these people deserve what they get for free? No, not really. These are the people who abuse the system. These are the people who don't really care about much of anything beyond their freebies. I think these are the people whom you are more aiming towards.

However, there are also the HPP. These people are the ones who will end up working 2-3 jobs just to get by. They are the ones that try and elevate themselves. These are the ones that work to the bone trying to make a better life for themselves. They tend to be the ones born out of opportunity. The ones that if given a break, can do a great deal for the community. These people are the ones that certain programs are aimed for.


I believe you highlighted the welfare/food stamp/etc. problem quite well. In America, while a distinct minority pays taxes, those on welfare or other direct handout programs are another minority. The majority will often support compulsory government "charity" out of sympathy for the HPP. I know they exist. My grandmother raised six kids below poverty, alone(husband ran out on her). I also know that things can be difficult for these people, but historically, attempting to "help" them has increased poverty(first link), or cost much more than it helped(due to abuse/administrative costs).

9 Trillion dollars later, the poverty rate has increased
http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-03-04.html

Poor? The myth of widespread American poverty
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1221.cfm

Regardless, I do not support welfare, but not because of any of the above. The primary reason is simply this:
I could be starving to death, without a possession of my own, not a cent. I could be dying of some unknown disease. I could be in horrible condition in every way. But none of this would give me any "right" to force someone to give me money. None of the above would give anyone else any "right" to give me any money, either, unless it was their money, that they had earned themselves(voluntarily given to them), and they voluntarily gave it to me.
If person A earns money, and person B desperately needs it, person B can never, morally, have any "right" to a cent of person A's money. And no one else has the right to take it from A and give it to B either. Ever.


Of course, the same is true for the opposite end:

1.Lazy Rich People(The Paris Hilton's of the world who are rich because their family is)
2.Hardworking Rich People(The Bill Gates' of the world, who start from nothing and build an empire so to speak, with their sweat and blood)

Hey, someone earned the Hilton fortune. If he wanted to leave it to his family, so be it. It was his rightfully earned money, and he has a right to do whatever he wants with it.
And Bill Gates is the man. Notice that he is richer because he provided more stuff for more people? Do you realize that his company gets sued for adding useful programs in with windows for free?(Media Player, internet explorer, etc.)



As for your second point, it is true that it is necessarily communist. However, there can exist a communism in which the work you do is voluntary, not compulsory. It's not necessarily against communism to be so, just totalitarian communism(Which is how communism is protrayed most commonly).
NOOOOOOOOOOOO

The only way that it even compares to communism is the first part-each individual works according to his/her ability.
This is NOT "necessarily communist"
The big difference here is that, in a capitalist economy, the individual has the right NOT to work to their full potential. You can be really good at math, but choose to do something you are less good at-but enjoy more. Communism is INHERENTLY COMPULSORY. If you get paid according to your "need", most would not work, and those that do would do so as a hobby-not a job.
The only option communism has is to force them to work. And to overcome communist/socialist inefficiencies, they often deny workers a choice of jobs, but assign them based on aptitude.

'Another quick post'? I'd hate to read your long ones.

1. You don't know anything about me. You don't know if I am generous, you don't know if I am stingy. Don't jump to conclusions that have absolutely no base.

I wasn't talking about you. I said "capitalists", didn't I? Don't think I said "Vittos Ordination". But if you felt attacked on a personal level, then I am sorry - for it was not my intent.

2. Secondly, capitalists are not about "me, me, me", we want fair and equal treatment to all people. We want people to be able to make a choice about how their labor is used, and how their compensation for labor is used.

How fairy-tale like. Sadly it doesn't work that way in the real world. The capitalism that is fair to everyone involved is a mathematical construction, a paper tiger. It is as much a reality as the idealistic communism Trotski defended. In reality, that "choice" you're so fond of often boils down to "either work for almost zilch or die". Unless of course you're lucky enough to have inherited some money, like a girl named Hilton or something. You think poor girls get the chances she got? Your system of "fairness" only works if everyone involved gets the same chances - which doesn't happen, by the way. Whichever way you look at it, it is not fair to have your chances determined by the social environment you were born in. There's a multitude of statistical information that can provide evidence on how your social and economic background predisposes you. As I see it, pro-capitalists always tend to quote the one poor Afro-American who made it to the top through struggle and hard work, whilst anti-capitalists always tend to quote the 999 who struggled and struggled but never made it. I don't care for heroes, I care for the ones that are left behind because "the system" is not congruential with what they can do.

When I work I expend my labor for my employer, in return he gives me capital to use in the form of wages. Therefore, wages are inseperable from labor. When efforts are made by government to take wages away from one person and to give them away to another, they are in effect making one person turn over his labor to another. When one person works for the sole benefit of another, it is slavery. That is why wealth redistribution is unethical.

I fit in my shirt, my shirt fits in my suitcase, therefore I fit in my suitcase. I hear you.
This is not matter we can settle through debate, I fear. Our differences are on such a deep, basal level - I wonder how it gotten that way? Ever wondered why there are capitalists and anti-capitalists (and in-betweens, but for the sake of argument... you know)? If your system is so wonderful, then howcome there are still so many poor people, which social science clearly deems "as a result of capitalist pressure"? Howcome there are anti-capitalists? Well I'll tell you: some people are selfish, some are not. Some people value rights, some people value duties. Some people detach, some people attract. Let me answer your logic with some of mine: you're walking the street, and right in front of you someone gets run over by a car. Would you let that person die? Isn't it your "duty" as a human being to help him/her? Turn it around: doesn't that person have the "right" to receive your aid? Or is it something that should be handled by "professionals" so you don't have to get your hands dirty? (you know, those people you pay taxes for... wait, you guys DO pay taxes to pay for firefighters and emergency helpers, don't you?) You see, from my point of view, if you're in a society, you should act like part of it. That doesn't mean you have to take crap from rampant idiots who "obviously" refuse to work - sadly, the majority of people that are actually "financially challenged" (ever heard of Hyam Maccoby? This anthropologist calls this a "detaching euphemistic" in order to soothe our conscience) aren't "lazy".
I think the prime difference between us is: you seem to focus on the lazy part "that sucks us dry", I seem to focus on the part that struggles but can't make it due to circumstances that are not their fault. This should not make me blind to faults in the SS (which are legion, btw), but it should not make you blind of the fact that there actually are poor sods who, merely by existing, have the "right" to receive aid from those that are better off. If people were meant to fend for themselves, then we would lead solitary lives (like male tigres) - yet we aren't, we live in groups, we are social animals. Ifr you like or not - that also means that a society should, IMO, look out for all its components. Not for utilitarian purposes, mind you - just because it's "the right thing to do". But all this is not adressing your point, is it?

Well here then: "expend labor, return capital". You're a lucky man, if you really do receive "capital" in return for your labor. Did you know that you just can't label "capital" like it's a word that encompasses each and every quantifiable financial variable? There IS a difference between someone getting paid 6$ an hour and someone being paid 25$ an hour, regardless of the work you do. You see, it would be "fair" somehow if it were the more skilled, or the one that went to school longer that gets the 25$ and the "stupid idiot with no other use for society than menial labor" to get the 6$. Well it isn't. Some "system" determines wether or not your particular labor is "worth" something. And that system isn't determined by what people need, but what they want (which is largely the same, but differs in respect that there's a lot less long-term planning involved in the "want"-part, quite the opposite really). And it gets worse: some parts of the world, which "expend their labor" for other parts of the world, get paid less than they should because the "system" offers that opportunity to the capital-owners. You see, the system determines "cost" when it suits it, and determines "profit" when it suits it. The labourer is a "cost" (instead of a person, but hey): making a sweater "costs" 5$ in one place, it sells for 25$ - that's a profit of 20$. Making it somewhere else goes for a cost of 0.50$ - that makes for a profit of 24.5$. The CEO's and shareholders will "obviously" choose for the latter option - "after all, isn't it logical?" There are people's lives at stake, families, children - but this is all determined by a simple equation. Clean, and simple. Why? "It's the economy, stupid!" That's one problem. Second: the "cost" of 0.50$ makes for more profit; you would think the receiver of said profit would be "thankful"? Yet they aren't. They will go to great lengths to keep the cost as low as possible, no matter what the social consequences. It has nothing to do with those capitalist paper arguments like "it's good for quality" or, even better, "it's better than those poor people starving". Hah! The main problem with capitalism IMO is that it reduces life to a simple equation, and an equation that favors the haves (and not the "cans", if you know what I mean).
"When efforts are made by government to take wages away from one person and to give them away to another, they are in effect making one person turn over his labor to another." Just like you're mother turned over her labor to you, you know: to feed you, to change diapers. All this for no return. Or wait: she did all that BECAUSE she wanted profit from your labor, which would be more if she cared for you better. But don't let my "boutade" fool you - I do see your point. But what then about banks? Intrest? That's turning over your labor to someone else, too. They have no merit, no labor whatsoever - they just have capital, and they can let others work for it, all the while gaining more capital, all the while doing squatt. In se, capitalism works quite OK - yet the "shadow economy", the financial economy, appropriates a VERY large scale of the economic production, skims on labor-profits, all this while gaining even more capital and even more power, all this while not being elected nor representative nor even socially active. I don't think that's fair, either. That, for the record, is my problem - not with capitalism in se, but with what peripheral functions and systems sit in its wake.
"When one person works for the sole benefit of another, it is slavery. That is why wealth redistribution is unethical." I see. I think my former point adresses this as well. Really do emphasise the "sole". So your feeling is that "the only reason you're working" is to feed some lazy bum, while not getting any advance yourself. If that's true, than I pity you. Over here, I work, pay taxes, and still get to keep money to buy stuff I need for me and mine. Wow.

3. You question my motivation to make all taxes fair, and to make sure that people receive far compensation for the taxes paid, yet this Mattheus-effect is a justification for fair taxes. Don't switch principles to try and make a point.
(Just so you know, there have been several instances where I have defended a graduated income tax)

The Mattheus-effect is NOT hypothetical, it IS the reality - in the social system you loathe. Already, the ones that pay the larger share of taxes get the larger share of returns. The poor are still worse off than the more wealthy. The only ones that are actually "fucked", if I may say so, are the very rich ones that pay a large absolute amount of taxes and see only a relatively small amount of it returned. But their relative part is absolutely still larger than the part that gets returned to the very poor. The middle classes see the most of their taxes returned, both absolutely and relatively. My point, therefore: why complain? You are NOT getting poorer because you pay taxes. It's not the simple equation of paying money: you have to calculate the return as well; public transportation, healthcare, roads, parks, police, etc... It would be a lot less efficient to have people pay for this individually. Less efficient, but more profitable for the ones in great financial power: the large companies, and banks. And that is why they stress tax-lowering - not to pay less, but to earn more. Think about it.

I do think you make good points - and I don't want you to think I'm at heart an anti-capitalist. I just feel that a quantifiably active system can NEVER be held in such a high regard as it is today, just because it has no qualitative component, and is therefore inadequate to wield the power over population as it does (or wants to do) today and in the future. Capitalism, IMO, "cannot be trusted".

NOOOOOOOOOOOO

The only way that it even compares to communism is the first part-each individual works according to his/her ability.
This is NOT "necessarily communist"
The big difference here is that, in a capitalist economy, the individual has the right NOT to work to their full potential. You can be really good at math, but choose to do something you are less good at-but enjoy more. Communism is INHERENTLY COMPULSORY. If you get paid according to your "need", most would not work, and those that do would do so as a hobby-not a job.
The only option communism has is to force them to work. And to overcome communist/socialist inefficiencies, they often deny workers a choice of jobs, but assign them based on aptitude.

Due to lack of time, I'm only going to adress this: I meant "not necessarily communist". I forgot to put "not".

Bascially, the economic principles now applied by the so called 'capitalists' are just merely a form of Bourgeosie Socialism devised by Karl Marx during the 19th Century: Free Trade, protective duties etc. Therefore itsn't it a bit foolish for you industrialists here to claim that Communism/Socialism doesn't work, even though you're using it?

Bascially, the economic principles now applied by the so called 'capitalists' are just merely a form of Bourgeosie Socialism devised by Karl Marx during the 19th Century: Free Trade, protective duties etc. Therefore itsn't it a bit foolish for you industrialists here to claim that Communism/Socialism doesn't work, even though you're using it?

Socio-Capitalism is fine.

Communism is an entirely different matter.

Taking away property rights is a HUGE difference, as is 'each according to their need' instead of 'each according to their ability'.

Each according to their ability is essentially capitalism prior to the intrusion of inheritance, after all.

Communism doesn't work because Marx failed to account for human nature. We're all too greedy and self-absorbed for true communism. Besides, No one has ever attempted it. The USSR and PRC were (or are) Police-state Dictatorships, pure and simple.

I wasn't talking about you. I said "capitalists", didn't I? Don't think I said "Vittos Ordination". But if you felt attacked on a personal level, then I am sorry - for it was not my intent.

You were responding directly to me, then accused capitalists of being self-centered knowing full-well that I am a capitalist. You either generalized or attacked me directly, either way it was offensive. Don't try to get out of the fact that it was an attack against me. But consider this dropped and forgotten.

How fairy-tale like. Sadly it doesn't work that way in the real world. The capitalism that is fair to everyone involved is a mathematical construction, a paper tiger. It is as much a reality as the idealistic communism Trotski defended.

You are right, perfect communism and perfect capitalism do not and will never exist. However, imperfect capitalism has lead to unprecedented freedom in the western world, imperfect communism has lead to several hundred million deaths. Take your pick.

In reality, that "choice" you're so fond of often boils down to "either work for almost zilch or die". Unless of course you're lucky enough to have inherited some money, like a girl named Hilton or something.

In developed countries, the number of people who "work for almost zilch or die" are very, very rare. In undeveloped countries, communism will have everyone working for zilch and still almost dying because of their poor economies.

As for the Hilton sisters:

1. It is a ridiculously extreme occurrence and should not be considered. Are you willing to get rid of the whole judicial system because one innocent man is sent to jail for life?

2. Just because you don't agree with her life choices and what she does with her parents money, you should not support a scheme that takes her parents money away. Jealousy is not a reasonable argument.


You think poor girls get the chances she got? Your system of "fairness" only works if everyone involved gets the same chances - which doesn't happen, by the way. Whichever way you look at it, it is not fair to have your chances determined by the social environment you were born in. There's a multitude of statistical information that can provide evidence on how your social and economic background predisposes you. As I see it, pro-capitalists always tend to quote the one poor Afro-American who made it to the top through struggle and hard work, whilst anti-capitalists always tend to quote the 999 who struggled and struggled but never made it. I don't care for heroes, I care for the ones that are left behind because "the system" is not congruential with what they can do.

For someone who doesn't care for heroes, you do a damn fine impersonation of a hero's rant. You can make ten million impassioned pleas that people get left behind by capitalism, that people get unfair advantages and unfair disadvantages, but relying on emotion does not determine a reasonable fairness.

Fairness is this:

One is born owning only one thing, his or her body. The only economic value his/her body has is labor. As one goes through life, he or she will trade this labor for capital. By having society take away this capital, the society strips the person of their labor, which is the only thing anyone can naturally own.

I fit in my shirt, my shirt fits in my suitcase, therefore I fit in my suitcase. I hear you.

I guess you are accusing me of logical fallacies, so please point them out.

If your system is so wonderful, then howcome there are still so many poor people, which social science clearly deems "as a result of capitalist pressure"?

Non-communist/socialist citation please.

Howcome there are anti-capitalists? Well I'll tell you: some people are selfish, some are not. Some people value rights, some people value duties. Some people detach, some people attract.

I don't know if any of those generalizations are true, so let me add one of my own:

Some people base their values on emotion, some on reason.

Let me answer your logic with some of mine: you're walking the street, and right in front of you someone gets run over by a car. Would you let that person die? Isn't it your "duty" as a human being to help him/her?

That would depend on my own morality, not yours. If I am smoker with lung cancer, is it your duty to forbid me from smoking? Duties are nearly impossible to define on an absolute level, rights on the other hand are much easier. If government stopped assigning duties, and solely protected rights, the duties that truly needed to be done would be done.

Turn it around: doesn't that person have the "right" to receive your aid? Or is it something that should be handled by "professionals" so you don't have to get your hands dirty? (you know, those people you pay taxes for... wait, you guys DO pay taxes to pay for firefighters and emergency helpers, don't you?)

The "so you don't have to get your hands dirty" really drives an emotional dagger in.

The person has no right to impose on someone else. I would like to think that people would make the ethical decision to help out of their own free choice.

And yes, I believe in society funded and operated internal and external security. I even believe in universal healthcare coverage, but that doesn't actually reflect the views of most capitalists.

You see, from my point of view, if you're in a society, you should act like part of it. That doesn't mean you have to take crap from rampant idiots who "obviously" refuse to work - sadly, the majority of people that are actually "financially challenged" (ever heard of Hyam Maccoby? This anthropologist calls this a "detaching euphemistic" in order to soothe our conscience) aren't "lazy".

Society would not operate if people did not act like a part of it. That is the whole point of society, that people join together in a society of their own volition. Capitalism builds on this, that people make the rational choice to operate within society as a means to better their situation. In order to better their situation they must provide a role of some utility to the society.

I think the prime difference between us is: you seem to focus on the lazy part "that sucks us dry", I seem to focus on the part that struggles but can't make it due to circumstances that are not their fault.

More generalisations about me. You will notice, were you to look at my prior posts (or asking people who I have discussed this issue with before) that I do not believe that human nature is a reasonable argument for an economic system. It is perpetually malleable, all the while being very different from individual to individual. In any economic system there will be people without much to offer society; there will be those who do not want to contribute to society; there will be those that become disenfranchised with the economic system and will decide that they would not benefit from contributing to society.

My argument is that no matter how human nature changes and how the individual behaves, we should:

1. Guarantee that human nature changes on it's own, without the intervention of government.

2. That a person should recieve a payment equal to the utility that they provide to society.

This should not make me blind to faults in the SS (which are legion, btw), but it should not make you blind of the fact that there actually are poor sods who, merely by existing, have the "right" to receive aid from those that are better off.

I have yet to see a valid moral or ethical argument that shows that those who acheive more than others should be forced to support those that do not.

If people were meant to fend for themselves, then we would lead solitary lives (like male tigres) - yet we aren't, we live in groups, we are social animals. Ifr you like or not - that also means that a society should, IMO, look out for all its components. Not for utilitarian purposes, mind you - just because it's "the right thing to do". But all this is not adressing your point, is it?

No, it is not, I already said that I don't like arguments about human nature when discussing economic or societal structures.

Well here then: "expend labor, return capital". You're a lucky man, if you really do receive "capital" in return for your labor. Did you know that you just can't label "capital" like it's a word that encompasses each and every quantifiable financial variable?

Dollars can be used to purchase means to production. They can be used to buy resources, they can be used to buy labor, but just like all other forms of capital, they can be personally consumed.


There IS a difference between someone getting paid 6$ an hour and someone being paid 25$ an hour, regardless of the work you do. You see, it would be "fair" somehow if it were the more skilled, or the one that went to school longer that gets the 25$ and the "stupid idiot with no other use for society than menial labor" to get the 6$. Well it isn't. Some "system" determines wether or not your particular labor is "worth" something.

The system is the free market system, and it has been at the center of the last two centuries of economic study. Arguing against the effects of the free market is equal, in my opinion, to the ignorance required to argue against evolution.

When you find a job that pays someone $25/hr, that they could just as suitably fill by paying $6 an hour, tell me about it, because I am looking for a job.

And that system isn't determined by what people need, but what they want (which is largely the same, but differs in respect that there's a lot less long-term planning involved in the "want"-part, quite the opposite really).

Are you trying to argue that people should not be trusted to determine and separate their own needs and wants? Do you really want government to determine a person's needs?

And it gets worse: some parts of the world, which "expend their labor" for other parts of the world, get paid less than they should because the "system" offers that opportunity to the capital-owners.

When you can explain how a world-wide communism can with no regional differences can be established, you may have a point. Until then there will always be under-developed economies that provide a lower standard of living.

If it makes you feel any better, I support complete elimination of immigration controls, so that those who are qualified to fulfill roles in a developed economy would be free to do so.

You see, the system determines "cost" when it suits it, and determines "profit" when it suits it. The labourer is a "cost" (instead of a person, but hey): making a sweater "costs" 5$ in one place, it sells for 25$ - that's a profit of 20$. Making it somewhere else goes for a cost of 0.50$ - that makes for a profit of 24.5$. The CEO's and shareholders will "obviously" choose for the latter option - "after all, isn't it logical?" There are people's lives at stake, families, children - but this is all determined by a simple equation. Clean, and simple. Why? "It's the economy, stupid!" That's one problem. Second: the "cost" of 0.50$ makes for more profit; you would think the receiver of said profit would be "thankful"? Yet they aren't. They will go to great lengths to keep the cost as low as possible, no matter what the social consequences. It has nothing to do with those capitalist paper arguments like "it's good for quality" or, even better, "it's better than those poor people starving". Hah! The main problem with capitalism IMO is that it reduces life to a simple equation, and an equation that favors the haves (and not the "cans", if you know what I mean).

First off, like I said, unless communism can erase economic regional differences, this is not a immediately fixable problem. Capitalism makes a slow process of developing economies to fix this problem, but it is certainly slow.

Everything in life IS a simple equation. When you decide whether to get up in the morning, you say "does the benefit of me getting up outweigh the benefit of me staying in bed." Everything decision anyone makes is a simple profit equation.

However, with capitalism, it allows people to be variables that are dependant on individual values and wants, whereas communism reduces people to society defined integers.

"When efforts are made by government to take wages away from one person and to give them away to another, they are in effect making one person turn over his labor to another." Just like you're mother turned over her labor to you, you know: to feed you, to change diapers. All this for no return. Or wait: she did all that BECAUSE she wanted profit from your labor, which would be more if she cared for you better.

She had the free choice as to whether to have a child and whether to provide for it. Due to her own personal nature, she accepted the duty of taking care of me.

There is nothing in capitalism that states that everything one does must be financially profitable.

But don't let my "boutade" fool you - I do see your point. But what then about banks? Intrest? That's turning over your labor to someone else, too. They have no merit, no labor whatsoever - they just have capital, and they can let others work for it, all the while gaining more capital, all the while doing squatt.

If banks provided no economic utility, they would not exist in a capitalistic society.

Banks, however, provide great utility in taking the risk of pooling money and redispursing it to people who need it. You take your wages to the bank and deposit them, the bank motivates you to do this by offering you interest as a small financial incentive. It does this with many people until it has a large amount of capital as financial backing. Then individuals who need money, for whatever reason, take out a loan, with the bank agreeing so long as the borrower pays a little extra money back for the risk taken.

This pooling and accurate redistribution of capital would not happen were it not for banks.

In se, capitalism works quite OK - yet the "shadow economy", the financial economy, appropriates a VERY large scale of the economic production, skims on labor-profits, all this while gaining even more capital and even more power, all this while not being elected nor representative nor even socially active. I don't think that's fair, either. That, for the record, is my problem - not with capitalism in se, but with what peripheral functions and systems sit in its wake.

Marx's stance on the exploitation of the worker by the capitalist have never been accurately shown. His mathematics were defunct and showed his lack of economic understanding.

As for capitalism not being representative or socially active: it doesn't need to. Capitalism only allows the society to perform on its own. It makes no effort to mold society in any shape. It assumes that, with society acting freely, it will provide for its own needs. As for being representative, the free market system of price and wage determination is the most free direct democracy invented.

"When one person works for the sole benefit of another, it is slavery. That is why wealth redistribution is unethical." I see. I think my former point adresses this as well. Really do emphasise the "sole". So your feeling is that "the only reason you're working" is to feed some lazy bum, while not getting any advance yourself. If that's true, than I pity you. Over here, I work, pay taxes, and still get to keep money to buy stuff I need for me and mine. Wow.

Once again, this has nothing to do with how individual laziness.

Too explain my point about slave labor, look at it this way. Let us say that I provide a labor utility to society at a value of $25 per hour (The determination of this value is immaterial). Now let us say that I work eight hours a day, providing $200 of labor utility to society. However, due to a socialistic/communistic scheme of wealth redistribution, I only receive $100 worth of wages. This $100 is the equivalent of four hours of labor provided, meaning that half of my day was spent as unpaid labor to society.

The Mattheus-effect is NOT hypothetical, it IS the reality - in the social system you loathe. Already, the ones that pay the larger share of taxes get the larger share of returns. The poor are still worse off than the more wealthy. The only ones that are actually "fucked", if I may say so, are the very rich ones that pay a large absolute amount of taxes and see only a relatively small amount of it returned. But their relative part is absolutely still larger than the part that gets returned to the very poor. The middle classes see the most of their taxes returned, both absolutely and relatively. My point, therefore: why complain? You are NOT getting poorer because you pay taxes. It's not the simple equation of paying money: you have to calculate the return as well; public transportation, healthcare, roads, parks, police, etc... It would be a lot less efficient to have people pay for this individually. Less efficient, but more profitable for the ones in great financial power: the large companies, and banks. And that is why they stress tax-lowering - not to pay less, but to earn more. Think about it.

Like I said, I have defended a progressive income tax, with this Mattheus-effect as a point of my reasoning (although I didn't know the name of it at the time). I agree that it is probably a true effect.

However, like I said before, I support fair taxes in which a person recieves government services equal to the taxes they pay. The Mattheus-effect is an argument for a progressive tax being a fair tax.

You are arguing for a tax that serves for wealth-redistribution in which the poor recieve more from government than they provide to it. The Mattheus effect sayst nothing towards that.

I do think you make good points - and I don't want you to think I'm at heart an anti-capitalist. I just feel that a quantifiably active system can NEVER be held in such a high regard as it is today, just because it has no qualitative component, and is therefore inadequate to wield the power over population as it does (or wants to do) today and in the future. Capitalism, IMO, "cannot be trusted".

I don't think you are anti-capitalist. In fact, I believe that we share very similar values. I do, however, know that we have completely differing views on the benefits and value of capitalism. I tend to believe that is because you have a less than adequate knowledge of capitalism or free market economics, but that may be due to my particular attachment to capitalism.

Bascially, the economic principles now applied by the so called 'capitalists' are just merely a form of Bourgeosie Socialism devised by Karl Marx during the 19th Century: Free Trade, protective duties etc. Therefore itsn't it a bit foolish for you industrialists here to claim that Communism/Socialism doesn't work, even though you're using it?

Adam Smith devised the basic economic principles of capitalism in the mid-late 18th century. David Ricardo (who argued for such non-communist ideas such as the establishment of currency, the ensuring that wealth should be fairly distributed to the more productive of society, and that underdeveloped economies can benefit from free-trade) branched off of Smith's ideas of labor to try and show that goods are valued by the labor used to produce them in the early 1800s.

Marx, following a preexisting belief that capitalism exploits the worker, manipulated Ricardo's rather capitalistic arguments with false assumptions and untestable theories to produce a decidedly uncapitalistic set of economic ideas in the mid-late 19th century.

Modern day capitalistic economics is based largely on the Austrian school of economics which completely dismissed Marx's economic arguments.

So to say that the economic principles behind modern day capitalism were devised by Marx is wrong in every facet.

So you are saying that it is immoral to live by your own effort, but moral to live by the effort of others?


My position(courtesty of Ayn Rand):
"I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

in my opinion communism is the idea political system- everyone gets what they need, everyone goes to work, everything gets done, everyone is equal. but it will never work for one reason: a communist state's governing body is relatively free to do as they wish, and human beings, by nature, are greedy, selfish, and willing to do crazy, and often horrible, things for money and power. not all humans always act this way, but all it takes is one to ruin the entire system. America's democracy is a great system because it is set up to handle corruption- each of the three governing bodies is governed by the other two. communism, if pure, would be a better system, but no system ever will be pure.

PROS:
everyone gets equal treatment
everyone gets what they need, reguardless of what they do for a job
the governing body is typically fairly small, and not as prone to beaurocracy

CONS:
'taxes' are insanely high, allowing the citizen to have practically no money
small corruption can turn communism into an oppressive dictatorship
supplies of goods for the people are often in short supply, or high demand- causing insanely long waits on receiving everyday things such as toilet paper

PROS:
everyone gets equal treatment

Everyone gets equal treatment in a capitalism that is run correctly. In a communism individuals are treated differently based on what they contribute to society. Those who produce more are economically hurt, those who produce less are economically helped.

the governing body is typically fairly small, and not as prone to beaurocracy

This is impossible for a communism. The various anarcho communists on here will say that there will be no government. However, there must be vast government run systems to maintain that labor demand will meet the labor supply and that resources will be equally distributed. That, plus the government works that society installs to support Communism's authoritarian nature.

CONS:
'taxes' are insanely high, allowing the citizen to have practically no money

You are referring to socialism. Communists want an elimination of wages and money, and therefore there will be no taxes. Sound like an unreasonable measure? Join the club.

You were responding directly to me, then accused capitalists of being self-centered knowing full-well that I am a capitalist. You either generalized or attacked me directly, either way it was offensive. Don't try to get out of the fact that it was an attack against me. But consider this dropped and forgotten.

:eek: Gee, thanks, I guess. For the record, I quoted you, not responded to you. The points you adressed were already made by earlier posters, you were just "lucky" you were last. So, yeah, we'll drop the post - as long as you recognize that I didn't and don't "attack". Not my style.


You are right, perfect communism and perfect capitalism do not and will never exist. However, imperfect capitalism has lead to unprecedented freedom in the western world, imperfect communism has lead to several hundred million deaths. Take your pick.

"Several hundred million?" Nice count, I sure want to read your history books. While we're at it, be sure to check out the also pretty large number of people that got killed by bullets and weapons made in capitalist factories to protect capitalist "rights". You'll be surprised. But then again, it might also be considered that communist and socialist deaths caused by capitalist weapons we're actually caused by THEM being communist and socialist, so it's obviously their fault :rolleyes:


In developed countries, the number of people who "work for almost zilch or die" are very, very rare. In undeveloped countries, communism will have everyone working for zilch and still almost dying because of their poor economies.

You ARE talking about communism, right? Not stalinism? Given the point you make here, you accuse ME of generalisation?

1. It is a ridiculously extreme occurrence and should not be considered. Are you willing to get rid of the whole judicial system because one innocent man is sent to jail for life?

Ridiculously extreme? The money she spends a day can be used to feed literally (!) hundreds of people. And if one innocent man is sent to jail, then the system should be inspected (not gotten rid of), and cannot (CAN NOT) be considered as "working perfectly". If after inspection it is deemed that it was a misfortunate accident, a human error, then fine, but only after amends. But there should be inspection nonetheless. Things like this are easily quantifiable (you know, "harm ethics" and such) but the only problems is: they shouldn't. It is immoral (or better, a-moral) to do so, and paradoxically invalid since it involves morality at the very core.

2. Just because you don't agree with her life choices and what she does with her parents money, you should not support a scheme that takes her parents money away. Jealousy is not a reasonable argument.

Why would I want to take her parent's money away? It's a cultural problem with an economically disastrous result: 1 filthy rich, 999 poor - and we're all fine with that, "since it's her choice". You didn't even adress my point - the fact that not everyone gets the chances she got, and that it has everything to do with randomness and money.
And you accusing me of jealous? Well allow me to retort: "*quotes Vittos Ordination* You don't know anything about me. ... Don't jump to conclusions that have absolutely no base." But hey, I'm jealous alright - of her beautiful eyes (I love them! If I was a girl, I'd want some just like those.)

For someone who doesn't care for heroes, you do a damn fine impersonation of a hero's rant. You can make ten million impassioned pleas that people get left behind by capitalism, that people get unfair advantages and unfair disadvantages, but relying on emotion does not determine a reasonable fairness.

Never mix heart and judgment, eh? LOL! Fairness, FYI, is an emotional construction - even a "reasonable" one! It is determined by "values", and is as such emotional, however much you think it to be "determined by reason". Judgment without caring is like a roll of the dice: fine if your playing Monopoly, not so fine when it's your quality of life that's at stake. What you state, what you propose is exactly my problem with a "system": it is a-moral, yet determines qualitative aspects through quantitative influencing (and is as such even immoral). It's, apologies for the anachronism, "barbaric" in the literal sense - it is not congruent with the human "language" of living, although it might seem to "be in accordance" with some aspects of it.
"A hero's rant"? I'm gonna have this as a motto!


Fairness is this:

One is born owning only one thing, his or her body. The only economic value his/her body has is labor. As one goes through life, he or she will trade this labor for capital. By having society take away this capital, the society strips the person of their labor, which is the only thing anyone can naturally own.

Some people own a better body than others do. Should they be punished or be looked after? As I said above: "a roll of the dice..."
People have intrinsic value by themselves, regardless of their "labour value". That is the problem with capitalist society: it reduces men and women to "producers" and "consumers". A true "society" should view them for what they really are: people.
And why would society want to take away his capital? Society would want to become equalised with his capital, not attain it for its own - that would just be capitalism but instead of free enterprise there would be state enterprise. Two shades of wrong, IMO. I agree with the fact that one's labour should be his/hers to keep - I never said anything about seizing capital.


I guess you are accusing me of logical fallacies, so please point them out.

It's called switch of cause and effect, and misrepresentation of terms - it cannot be helped, given the "valuedness" of the used terms, but it is highly "discutable" (as they say in French). You use the same term (labour), yet it decidedly differs in values along the way. Hence, a fallacy.
Wage does not equal labour - it equals the value of said labour, a value that is determined by an impersonal system (hence: my primary problem with it). "Turning over labour", hence, does not equal "wealth redistribution", although I see how you would consider it "slavery" and therefore deem it unethical. Yet, you need to make the point of slavery to make "turning over labour" unethical - thus hereby making it invalid. I see your point, however, I just don't agree with the value you impose on certain terms.

Non-communist/socialist citation please.

It was. Social sciences isn't socialist/communist, it's social. You know, "about groups of people". Branding it with a politically loaded term isn't going to make the problem go away, mind you.


I don't know if any of those generalizations are true, ...

Generalisations? Surely you mean: "truths". If I say "some people are selfish, some are not", how's that a generalisation? It's purely meant to illustrate the innate opposedness of human beings - hence, capitalists versus non-capitalists.

Some people base their values on emotion, some on reason.

Wrong. All people base their values on emotion, it is merely some choices that can be made rationally/reasonably. What does happen, is that people get attached to seemingly rational solutions, they "value" them highly - again, an emotional outburst (value predisposes emotion).
I'll illustrate: say you go shopping for a bicycle. You will shop for a bicycle that has certain "values". Some of them are blatantly emotional (color, for instance, even if "you don't care"), some are not as apparent. Say, type of tires - thin or thick. Thick ones go slow, yet are less likely to go flat. Thin ones, the other way round. You will choose (apparently) rational, yet you will fetch your variables on which to base "this rational decision" on personal experience (or replacement experience, f.e. a magazine, friend's advice, etc.) - personal experience, thus "history", determines your set of variables. And experience (and history) are emotional, are valued on an emotional level. Your choice is fueled by what it is you want to achieve, what is you need to receive from the item you are about to acquire. "Wanting" and "needing" are determined by and originated from emotions. Simple as that. You cannot disconnect emotion from reason - that is a misconception we inherited from the Enlightenment (or rather, what later scholars perceived as "the Enlightenment", but I'll use the vernacular meaning here without any further ado).


That would depend on my own morality, not yours. If I am smoker with lung cancer, is it your duty to forbid me from smoking? Duties are nearly impossible to define on an absolute level, rights on the other hand are much easier. If government stopped assigning duties, and solely protected rights, the duties that truly needed to be done would be done.

I wouldn't forbid you from smoking. But I would if your smoking means causing me harm. (Which it doesn't right now, so you're safe) And btw, if you already have lung cancer, it's kinda too late, don't you agree?
And I would also like to add that "smoking yourself to death" (a personal choice) does not equal "being run over by car" (some attempts at bloody suicide notwithstanding, normally not a personal choice). The fact I wanted to point out, actually, was that people have the right to be helped when in trouble (definition of trouble should be provided, and here we are again with the values!). If they refuse said help, so be it. But it should be their choice, not the choice of an impersonal system or a roll of the dice. Furthermore, it should be the duty to offer help ("offering", here, is not the same as, "being
pushy and opressing the other for his or her own sake", mind you - especially not when you're run over by a car...)


The "so you don't have to get your hands dirty" really drives an emotional dagger in.

The person has no right to impose on someone else. I would like to think that people would make the ethical decision to help out of their own free choice.

And yes, I believe in society funded and operated internal and external security. I even believe in universal healthcare coverage, but that doesn't actually reflect the views of most capitalists.

You make it sound like I was being sarcastic. Which I wasn't. Again, I meant "offer" not "impose". And again, the "you" is impersonal pronoun (if that's the right word, I'm not English), not "you" specifically. Offering help is mandatory, refusing help is optional. Refusing to help, however, is immoral IMO. I think the right to be helped outweighs the "free choice" of not helping, however much that may appal you (this "you", however, was personal). But I do see your ethical point on the freedom of choice. Yet I view this particular level of ethics like this: if your action does not hurt anyone, then it's fine. If it does, however, it's wrong. The person needing help is not hurting you. Yet you are hurting him/her by NOT helping. It's really delicate, IMO. Our (Dutch) legislation has a word for it, called "schuldig verzuim" (something like "guilty not-doing anything") - in my view, it should be in the legislation.


Society would not operate if people did not act like a part of it. That is the whole point of society, that people join together in a society of their own volition. Capitalism builds on this, that people make the rational choice to operate within society as a means to better their situation. In order to better their situation they must provide a role of some utility to the society.

Ah, the Smithian point of view. "If everyone works on his own interest, then the whole of society would be bettered." I agree to certain points, yet I disagree with the valuedness of the term "society" - in capitalism, society is made up of (groups of) people that are opposing eachother, that "battle" against eachother. Not everyone wants to "battle" however, and furthermore - the "sum of values", the Gestalt, is thus not "more than its parts", because energy and power is lost in struggle. And because not everyone wants to battle, yet has to to survive (and work shitty jobs, sounds like "slavery" doesn't it?), you cannot say that capitalism is a society that is made up of members "of their own volition". There's a lot more "opressive conformity" required than you seem to acknowledge. But I agree with the part "in order to better their situation they must provide a role of some utility to the society" - yet the "bettering" nor the definition of "utility", again, should be determined by chance.

I have yet to see a valid moral or ethical argument that shows that those who acheive more than others should be forced to support those that do not.

It's about conscience, hence on a personal level. Morals or ethics on this part will wax and wane due to historic processes. What I meant here was, that people, through existing, have the "right" to survive, or better yet - to have (a) quality of life. And that right outweighs other people's right to be rich beyond personal need, IMO.


No, it is not, I already said that I don't like arguments about human nature when discussing economic or societal structures.

Dislike all you will. They are inseperable. It is a fallacy to assume that economics, society and human nature can be considered "by themselves" and "not connected".


Dollars can be used to purchase means to production. They can be used to buy resources, they can be used to buy labor, but just like all other forms of capital, they can be personally consumed.

Indeed, but that's not what I implied. My point was; there's difference between 1$ and 100$, a quantifiable one - that seems to represent a qualifiable difference at the same ratio. Yet there are NO qualifiable ratios, since it is valued beyond the capabilaties of numerical values. It is in essence a rationable quantity that is acting to be a quality. It can't be done.



The system is the free market system, and it has been at the center of the last two centuries of economic study. Arguing against the effects of the free market is equal, in my opinion, to the ignorance required to argue against evolution.

There is no such thing as "the free market". It requires regulation and legislation, hence it is not free. And the rules are often bended as it suits the more powerful - look at how the WTO treats the East. And exactly the "bending" part is what I have a problem with. And btw, I didn't argue against the effects, but against the motives.


Are you trying to argue that people should not be trusted to determine and separate their own needs and wants? Do you really want government to determine a person's needs?

No - it has nothing to do with trust. I do trust the people, just not the system. The system is geared towards profit, and equals said profit with want and seemingly less and less with need. The system favours persons who are able to make people want something that they don't really need, instead of the opposite. Smithians argue that profit is attained by making a superior product, thus improving your product. Yet in reality it is often employed through figuratively destroying someone else's product, or lying about your own product. And because the system offers that loophole, you know that there will be people who are going to use it. And the last thing I would want is for a government to decide what I need - yet they should offer openness and objective information and guidance. Because the capitalist system in reality obviously doesn't. Even you should agree that a person alone cannot possibly decide on everything he/she needs, mostly because he lacks the expertise. That's when other people come in, to give advice. And that advice should be objective and as correct as possible (given the available knowledge). When profit is involved, you CAN'T trust this to be true.


When you can explain how a world-wide communism can with no regional differences can be established, you may have a point. Until then there will always be under-developed economies that provide a lower standard of living.

If it makes you feel any better, I support complete elimination of immigration controls, so that those who are qualified to fulfill roles in a developed economy would be free to do so.

Sadly it doesn't, but thanks for trying anyway. The point is the Wallerstein-principle, which I'm not going to explain here. Suffise it to say, it's about syphoning wealth from one part of the world to another, with no reciprocity or - even worse - with keeping in existence the environment that makes said syphoning possible (through production-embargoes, artificially lowered feas, etc. - all capitalist realities).
I don't see why regional differences and communism can't mix. Of course there are regional differences (resources, number of people, climate, geology, etc.), just not what intrinsic labour value is concerned. In capitalism, a Chinese shoemaker is "valued" less than a Dutch shoemaker (based on the worth of his labour: the reciprocal value of his wage), but that's not the worst part: the worst part is that this difference is artificially kept in place through the laws of the very system that makes use of them.


First off, like I said, unless communism can erase economic regional differences, this is not a immediately fixable problem. Capitalism makes a slow process of developing economies to fix this problem, but it is certainly slow.

And, see Wallerstein, this development is often halted "for the sake of profit".

Everything in life IS a simple equation. When you decide whether to get up in the morning, you say "does the benefit of me getting up outweigh the benefit of me staying in bed." Everything decision anyone makes is a simple profit equation.
However, with capitalism, it allows people to be variables that are dependant on individual values and wants, whereas communism reduces people to society defined integers.

I disagree, on a philosophical level. Nothing in life is a simple equation. You don't "outweigh benefits" when getting up in the morning, that's an illusion - sometimes you just get up without thinking (just an example). You just can't reduce life to a simple equation. You can try, but you will see that you still need a temporal and cultural (and historically valid) construction to make it so. It's an "ephemere truth" you stated, determined by historical processes. It is looking on life through culturally determined glasses.


There is nothing in capitalism that states that everything one does must be financially profitable.

It is if you want to survive in the capitalist world.


If banks provided no economic utility, they would not exist in a capitalistic society.

I agree. They do provide economic utility - utility, that in the end profits them the most (or even them alone). And in doing so, they wield a power over society that is not "given to them" by the people.

Banks, however, provide great utility in taking the risk of pooling money and redispursing it to people who need it. You take your wages to the bank and deposit them, the bank motivates you to do this by offering you interest as a small financial incentive. It does this with many people until it has a large amount of capital as financial backing. Then individuals who need money, for whatever reason, take out a loan, with the bank agreeing so long as the borrower pays a little extra money back for the risk taken.

This pooling and accurate redistribution of capital would not happen were it not for banks.

True, a very accurate perception, yet banks do a lot more than that. For money is not just money, it is also power over life. Banks quickly realised that they could make a lot more money by bending financial economic rules and redistributing/investing power than by offering intrest and receiving risk-rents. And for "offering money" and investing it (which is "having others labour for you", a.k.a. slavery as you put it) they get power outside the financial environment, power that allows them to hamper others. Banks are just like any other corporation - they strive towards profit-maximalization (if they didn't, then that would be a fair system). And I stated already that said maximalization is not always achieved by "honorable" means.

Marx's stance on the exploitation of the worker by the capitalist have never been accurately shown. His mathematics were defunct and showed his lack of economic understanding.
As for capitalism not being representative or socially active: it doesn't need to. Capitalism only allows the society to perform on its own. It makes no effort to mold society in any shape. It assumes that, with society acting freely, it will provide for its own needs. As for being representative, the free market system of price and wage determination is the most free direct democracy invented.

I wasn't stating Marx - just using simple mathematics.
And you're correct in your assumptions. It seems that in reality, however, they don't really work like that. They have a "dark side", one that should be made as harmless as possible - through social security, and redistribution of wealth, IMO.


Once again, this has nothing to do with how individual laziness.

Too explain my point about slave labor, look at it this way. Let us say that I provide a labor utility to society at a value of $25 per hour (The determination of this value is immaterial). Now let us say that I work eight hours a day, providing $200 of labor utility to society. However, due to a socialistic/communistic scheme of wealth redistribution, I only receive $100 worth of wages. This $100 is the equivalent of four hours of labor provided, meaning that half of my day was spent as unpaid labor to society.

1. Determination value you proposed is not completely immaterial, it is tied to the material value of the product you produce (and where you live, were born, your nationality, your skin colour, etc.).
2. You equal the 200$ you "earn" as having the same value to society. Yet it doesn't. Your utility cannot be reduced to a sum.
3. You shouldn't see it as paying for someone else: you are also paying for yourself - for roads, for police, for firefighters, for health-service, etc. And you are paying far less for it then if you would procure all those services all by yourself (because the state doesn't need to make profit, and it works in bulk, hence lower costs). And being unemployed could just as easily happen to you, be it "deserved" or not. I agree that there are people who take advantage of this, but this does not make the whole system invalid...


Like I said, I have defended a progressive income tax, with this Mattheus-effect as a point of my reasoning (although I didn't know the name of it at the time). I agree that it is probably a true effect.

I think we could agree on more things than this alone - our differences seem to be more on a philosophical level...

However, like I said before, I support fair taxes in which a person recieves government services equal to the taxes they pay. The Mattheus-effect is an argument for a progressive tax being a fair tax.

Not exactly, as it is already in effect in the current (European) taxation system. Progressive tax is, indeed, the fairest solution.

You are arguing for a tax that serves for wealth-redistribution in which the poor recieve more from government than they provide to it. The Mattheus effect sayst nothing towards that.

Indeed. I think they should receive more than they provide, just because they are poor. They don't live a luxury life, even with support from the government. Most still have to struggle to get by. And they did nothing to deserve their faith - just not having rich parents, or getting ill in youth, etc...


I don't think you are anti-capitalist. In fact, I believe that we share very similar values. I do, however, know that we have completely differing views on the benefits and value of capitalism. I tend to believe that is because you have a less than adequate knowledge of capitalism or free market economics, but that may be due to my particular attachment to capitalism.

I would agree. I can't say that I'm an expert, but I know a lot more about economic reality than you think. I understand capitalism well enough to know, that it is in reality (in its implementation) steadily geared towards a free-for-all with a very unpleasant dark side, and that these excesses should be nullified as much as possible by socialist thought...

There were more things I wanted to say, but it's getting late... Until next time, I guess ;)

Socio-Capitalism is fine.

Communism is an entirely different matter.

Taking away property rights is a HUGE difference, as is 'each according to their need' instead of 'each according to their ability'.

Each according to their ability is essentially capitalism prior to the intrusion of inheritance, after all.

Have you even read Marx? In the Manifesto it states: Abolition that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation.

Therefore only private enterprise is banned to prevent the the bourgeosie exploiting the Working Class during the time. In the Industrail Revolution, the factory 'workers', or should I say 8 year old boys, were treated worse than slaves. They had to work 12 hours a day in appauling and overcrowded conditions. They were fined for the merest trifle, somtiems more than they were earning, that is if they recieved any wage at all. They were beaten regularly by the overseers and had to live in the notorious slums. This is true capitalism. You don't have any of the Trade Union or minimum wage laws you get today. In fact these are all Socialist/Communist ideas taken by the so called 'capitalist' governments in the 20th Century to keep the masses satisfied and to prevent a revolution like the 1917 Red Ocotober Revolution in Russia and the 1945 Revolution in China.

Thus this theory of abolition of private ownership made sense to Karl Marx and to the vast majority of the European population in the 1900's.

Well, Karl Marx said the first christians were the best communists - small, close-knit groups all living and working together. Communism in small groups works well, but then wht about relations with other groups? it'd work if each didn't know the others were there - but that's a difficult if indeed.

Did anyone see the documentry about communism a few hours ago on five? Anyway Mikhail Gorbachev the former russain president says communism is an unacheivable dream that was forced on the people and they hated it so much every communist politician was forced from office.

Capitalism did read communism.Chamber communism knew capitalism.
None of then Had Their hands cover with olie or blood,nice world he!he i forgot fascisme. :mp5:
Sarcasme vs hypocrism

All forms of economic structure have their good points and bad points. Communism works only on paper however.

All forms of economic structure have their good points and bad points. Communism works only on paper however.
i'won' t give you a dollar for it

In your own respected opinion, will communism ever work? Why do you think like that? If not, then why not, and if so then why will it work? Just trying to see where everyone stands on this issue. Three well thought out ideas about the pro's and cons would be good also.

What do you think??? Remember the USSR? The East Boc? Ammm, thats the testiment to communisium. It sucks and would never work.

It depends on how you define it. Communism really has two completely opposite meanings. I can't tell whether you are asking whether nigh-absolute totalitarianism or a stateless, classless, marketless society is possible. I would say both can work, but the former is not a good way to live.

"Several hundred million?" Nice count, I sure want to read your history books. While we're at it, be sure to check out the also pretty large number of people that got killed by bullets and weapons made in capitalist factories to protect capitalist "rights". You'll be surprised. But then again, it might also be considered that communist and socialist deaths caused by capitalist weapons we're actually caused by THEM being communist and socialist, so it's obviously their fault :rolleyes:

Several hundred million was a typo, I got switched up between tens of millions and a hundred million, but the total deaths due to communist governments over the last decade exceeds, by some estimates, a hundred million.

Total deaths by war in the 20th century: 105M
Total deaths due to communist governments: 100M
Stalin Purge/Famines: 30M
Mao Famines: 30M

And the production of guns would exist were capitalism to have never been heard of.

You ARE talking about communism, right? Not stalinism? Given the point you make here, you accuse ME of generalisation?

I am talking about the fact that, in developed capitalistic countries the amount of people who have to scrap just to survive are rare. It is in the undeveloped countries where that is a problem. Communism will not spur on economic development, Stalinist or otherwise, and will continue to leave the citizens in poverty.

You didn't even adress my point - the fact that not everyone gets the chances she got, and that it has everything to do with randomness and money.

I doubt that the people who built the Hilton empire would agree that their fortunes are all due to randomness.

And you accusing me of jealous? Well allow me to retort: "*quotes Vittos Ordination* You don't know anything about me. ... Don't jump to conclusions that have absolutely no base." But hey, I'm jealous alright - of her beautiful eyes (I love them! If I was a girl, I'd want some just like those.)

You are correct, I retract my statement and apologize.

Never mix heart and judgment, eh? LOL! Fairness, FYI, is an emotional construction - even a "reasonable" one! It is determined by "values", and is as such emotional, however much you think it to be "determined by reason".

Fairness is treating everyone equally. That I think we can agree with. In my opinion, inorder to do this, the valuation of all subjective entities and abstracts must be left up to the individual. Only objective values should be set at the societal level.

Look at it this way, everyone assigns different values to everything, goods, services, laws, representation in government, etc. So that means that if society were to set universal values to these things, then the individuals would be affected positively or adversely depending on their own valuation of those things. This means that society must work to not assign objective universal values to subjective individual aspects.

You are saying that fairness is a abstract idea based on an individual's rational, moral, and emotional values. I am saying that that is quite true, so that the reasonable thing to do is to allow the individual to determine what is fair for themselves. Therefore, the only government role should be to allow complete personal freedom up to the point of imposing on another individual. Capitalism allows for that, communism doesn't.

Judgment without caring is like a roll of the dice: fine if your playing Monopoly, not so fine when it's your quality of life that's at stake.

Caring always leads to bias. When we allow things that have a set of values to cast judgement on our lives, we immediately cause those who have a different set of values to be put at a disadvantage. If judgement without caring were a bad thing, why do trial courts operate around a group of totally unbiased, uncaring individuals.

What you state, what you propose is exactly my problem with a "system": it is a-moral, yet determines qualitative aspects through quantitative influencing (and is as such even immoral). It's, apologies for the anachronism, "barbaric" in the literal sense - it is not congruent with the human "language" of living, although it might seem to "be in accordance" with some aspects of it.

It is amoral, you cannot govern society based on morality because morality is so subjective.

Also, the quantitative influencing is determined by the individual values of the people. Prices and wages are determined by the demand and supply for goods and labor, the demand and supply are determined by individual desires for goods, which is driven by personal values.

As for the rest, I don't quite grasp what you are meaning by "the human 'language' of living."

Some people own a better body than others do. Should they be punished or be looked after? As I said above: "a roll of the dice..."

I don't believe they should be punished or looked after, just be allowed to make the most out of their existence that they can.

As for this "roll of the dice", you cannot do away with luck without doing away with freedom, you cannot insure safety without eliminating liberty, risk and reward is a part of life.

I guess if you are that worried about biological differences, then we can just outlaw birth.

People have intrinsic value by themselves, regardless of their "labour value". That is the problem with capitalist society: it reduces men and women to "producers" and "consumers". A true "society" should view them for what they really are: people.

Capitalism is an economic system. In a society, the economic role of a person is just that, a producer or a consumer, so no matter what economic system that is imposed, the person will still be a producer and a consumer. Capitalism allows the person the freedom to act as an individual within the economy of a society, communism does not.

And why would society want to take away his capital? Society would want to become equalised with his capital, not attain it for its own - that would just be capitalism but instead of free enterprise there would be state enterprise. Two shades of wrong, IMO. I agree with the fact that one's labour should be his/hers to keep - I never said anything about seizing capital.

In a communism, there is no privately owned capital, so by extension there is no privately owned labor.

You do not sound like someone who would support communism, but someone who would support a Rousseau-esque liberalism.

You use the same term (labour), yet it decidedly differs in values along the way. Hence, a fallacy.
Wage does not equal labour - it equals the value of said labour, a value that is determined by an impersonal system (hence: my primary problem with it).

Wage should equal labor in the utility it provides. The wage provided for labor should equal the amount of wages needed to buy the exact same labor from someone else. In that sense wages are equal to labor, and the two are inseparable. I have never varied from this definition of labor.

"Turning over labour", hence, does not equal "wealth redistribution", although I see how you would consider it "slavery" and therefore deem it unethical. Yet, you need to make the point of slavery to make "turning over labour" unethical - thus hereby making it invalid. I see your point, however, I just don't agree with the value you impose on certain terms.

Like I said earlier, labor is the only wealth we inherently own, so any attempt at wealth redistribution is, assuming that wages and labor are inseparable, taking labor from one person and giving it to another.

But I need to know where the difference in values is, and why the slavery point makes my argument invalid, in order to address this well enough.

It was. Social sciences isn't socialist/communist, it's social. You know, "about groups of people". Branding it with a politically loaded term isn't going to make the problem go away, mind you.

I know what social science is, what I was asking for was a credible non-socialist/communist source on the social sciences that agrees with what you said about people being poor due to capitalist pressures.

Generalisations? Surely you mean: "truths". If I say "some people are selfish, some are not", how's that a generalisation? It's purely meant to illustrate the innate opposedness of human beings - hence, capitalists versus non-capitalists.

I thought, once again, that you were generalizing with capitalists being selfish. If that was not the case, I apologize for the misinterpretation.

But I do see your ethical point on the freedom of choice. Yet I view this particular level of ethics like this: if your action does not hurt anyone, then it's fine. If it does, however, it's wrong. The person needing help is not hurting you. Yet you are hurting him/her by NOT helping. It's really delicate, IMO. Our (Dutch) legislation has a word for it, called "schuldig verzuim" (something like "guilty not-doing anything") - in my view, it should be in the legislation.

If you can actually reasonably show me that not helping someone is in effect hurting someone I might be able to agree with you.

Ah, the Smithian point of view. "If everyone works on his own interest, then the whole of society would be bettered." I agree to certain points, yet I disagree with the valuedness of the term "society" - in capitalism, society is made up of (groups of) people that are opposing eachother, that "battle" against eachother. Not everyone wants to "battle" however, and furthermore - the "sum of values", the Gestalt, is thus not "more than its parts", because energy and power is lost in struggle. And because not everyone wants to battle, yet has to to survive (and work shitty jobs, sounds like "slavery" doesn't it?), you cannot say that capitalism is a society that is made up of members "of their own volition". There's a lot more "opressive conformity" required than you seem to acknowledge. But I agree with the part "in order to better their situation they must provide a role of some utility to the society" - yet the "bettering" nor the definition of "utility", again, should be determined by chance.

1. Very rarely is there direct competition between companies to the point where they actually "battling" each other. Even when there is direct competitive battling between companies, it tends to help all but very few of those involved. Consumers get better products and lower prices, and good employees recieve rewards to keep them from moving their expertise to the other side.

2. Competition forces businesses to be more efficient, not more wasteful.

3. People in a capitalistic society can choose who they work for. People in a capitalistic society even have the ultimate economic freedom, they can work for themselves. They can start their own business if they want to. In communism they are not afforded the chance.

It's about conscience, hence on a personal level. Morals or ethics on this part will wax and wane due to historic processes. What I meant here was, that people, through existing, have the "right" to survive, or better yet - to have (a) quality of life. And that right outweighs other people's right to be rich beyond personal need, IMO.

Conscience is subjective, and, like I said before, once society bases its governing on a subjective aspect of the minority it oppresses people.

[/QUOTE]Dislike all you will. They are inseperable. It is a fallacy to assume that economics, society and human nature can be considered "by themselves" and "not connected".[/QUOTE]

I didn't say that society wasn't affected by human nature or vice versa, it is just that human nature is a very individualistic thing, when you govern it from a societal level, it means that some people will be oppressed for the gratification of others. The people being oppressed being those who would rather succeed on their own, the people being gratified being those who would like to see society act as one big family.

Indeed, but that's not what I implied. My point was; there's difference between 1$ and 100$, a quantifiable one - that seems to represent a qualifiable difference at the same ratio. Yet there are NO qualifiable ratios, since it is valued beyond the capabilaties of numerical values. It is in essence a rationable quantity that is acting to be a quality. It can't be done.

What are you getting at with this. I don't really understand you.

No - it has nothing to do with trust. I do trust the people, just not the system. The system is geared towards profit, and equals said profit with want and seemingly less and less with need. The system favours persons who are able to make people want something that they don't really need, instead of the opposite. Smithians argue that profit is attained by making a superior product, thus improving your product. Yet in reality it is often employed through figuratively destroying someone else's product, or lying about your own product. And because the system offers that loophole, you know that there will be people who are going to use it. And the last thing I would want is for a government to decide what I need - yet they should offer openness and objective information and guidance. Because the capitalist system in reality obviously doesn't. Even you should agree that a person alone cannot possibly decide on everything he/she needs, mostly because he lacks the expertise. That's when other people come in, to give advice. And that advice should be objective and as correct as possible (given the available knowledge). When profit is involved, you CAN'T trust this to be true.

Advice and expertise can also be purchased on the free market, and it is subjective to all the pressures of goods on the free market. Therefore, those who offer the best advice and expertise for the respective price will succeed.

Sadly it doesn't, but thanks for trying anyway. The point is the Wallerstein-principle, which I'm not going to explain here. Suffise it to say, it's about syphoning wealth from one part of the world to another, with no reciprocity or - even worse - with keeping in existence the environment that makes said syphoning possible (through production-embargoes, artificially lowered feas, etc. - all capitalist realities).

I am not capitalist because I like capitalism and wealth hording, I only believe in the free market and property rights. Nationalism and protectionism are at odds with the free market and I do not agree with them.

I disagree, on a philosophical level. Nothing in life is a simple equation. You don't "outweigh benefits" when getting up in the morning, that's an illusion - sometimes you just get up without thinking (just an example). You just can't reduce life to a simple equation. You can try, but you will see that you still need a temporal and cultural (and historically valid) construction to make it so. It's an "ephemere truth" you stated, determined by historical processes. It is looking on life through culturally determined glasses.

Give to me one decision you made in which you didn't simply weigh out the pros and cons. Now I understand that every individual adds different weights to different outcomes and costs, but those variables are allowed in the capitalist system, not in the communist system.

It is if you want to survive in the capitalist world.

One of your arguments is that people in a capitalist economy are easily fooled by companies into buying something they don't need, which would be a bad financial move, yet they almost never starve from it.

Also, charity is enormous in the US, yet no one has starved from donating to charity.

I agree. They do provide economic utility - utility, that in the end profits them the most (or even them alone). And in doing so, they wield a power over society that is not "given to them" by the people.

True, a very accurate perception, yet banks do a lot more than that. For money is not just money, it is also power over life.

I have heard a lot of people state this, but have yet to hear one person explain why money is power over life.

Banks quickly realised that they could make a lot more money by bending financial economic rules and redistributing/investing power than by offering intrest and receiving risk-rents. And for "offering money" and investing it (which is "having others labour for you", a.k.a. slavery as you put it) they get power outside the financial environment, power that allows them to hamper others. Banks are just like any other corporation - they strive towards profit-maximalization (if they didn't, then that would be a fair system). And I stated already that said maximalization is not always achieved by "honorable" means.

OK, first quit calling people who are hired to work for someone slaves. In capitalism, members of society have complete ownership over their own labor. When they are employed by someone they form a contract in which they exchange their labor for capital. That is not slavery, it is not even close.

Explain these:

bending financial economic rules and redistributing/investing power than by offering intrest and receiving risk-rents

they get power outside the financial environment, power that allows them to hamper others.

1. Determination value you proposed is not completely immaterial, it is tied to the material value of the product you produce (and where you live, were born, your nationality, your skin colour, etc.).

I am saying that no matter how labor value is determined in a society, the principle is the same. If it is derived by a communistic social utility or by the free market, the labor and its value still belongs to you before you provide it.

2. You equal the 200$ you "earn" as having the same value to society. Yet it doesn't. Your utility cannot be reduced to a sum.

In economics it can. Remember that right now I am discussing the economic values of capitalism, not the social values.

There are many factors that determine economic value, marginal utility being the most important.

3. You shouldn't see it as paying for someone else: you are also paying for yourself - for roads, for police, for firefighters, for health-service, etc. And you are paying far less for it then if you would procure all those services all by yourself (because the state doesn't need to make profit, and it works in bulk, hence lower costs). And being unemployed could just as easily happen to you, be it "deserved" or not. I agree that there are people who take advantage of this, but this does not make the whole system invalid...

Some points:

1. I have no problem with taxation, only with taxation being used as wealth redistribution. It is rational to have people paying for police, for firefighters, even for emergency health services. However, I do not support financially raising up one person by taking the labor of another person.

2. People will take advantage of any system, so you are correct that it doesn't make the system invalid.

There's a fine line, but basically in communism there is no government because there doesn't need to be one and in anarchy there just isn't one
Not quite. Communism is total government control on the economy. Anarchy is total lack of government control on the people. Anarcho-Communism would therefore be something like the American Democratic party taken to a very extreme extreme (I hope that cements the two concepts in your head).

Have you even read Marx? In the Manifesto it states: Abolition that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation.


I intend to read Marx in the near future. It's on my list of religions to look up for laughs. I find it especially funny since the guy was essentially just a literary scholar. As an English major, I'm at least as qualified as he is to decide how the world should work: I even have the advantage of being alive in the modern world, and not in an entirely different era. Personally, I'd rather take my economic advice from Mark Twain... Or maybe Piers Anthony...

1) That's a horribly-structured sentence. I assume abolition is supposed to be 'abolish'?

2) Exploitation is meaningless in this regard, as a communist pointed out awhile ago. Breathing and loving are forms of exploitation. Communism exploits one worker to benefit another, weaker one. Welcome to the world of rhetoric.

3) The sentence means "This piece of property which is used to give workers jobs can only increase in size if it causes people to be born, so that they too can be employed." Oh NO! Marx says that businesses can only increase if they give more people jobs, aieee!


Therefore only private enterprise is banned to prevent the the bourgeosie exploiting the Working Class during the time.


"Exploit" is such a cutely useless word. Kind of like 'selfish' is.

Do you honestly suggest that managers, who are not owners, and thus not bourgeosie, who make gads of money per hour, and mostly just trouble-shoot, are being 'exploited'? Would you call the 120' house I was raised in a sign of exploitation?

Or better yet. What if someone starts up a little shop. That they earned through, gasp, wages. Are you saying that the INSTANT they hire someone for anything but an equal cut of the profits, even if its, like, just someone to sweep up, they're exploiting?


In the Industrail Revolution, the factory 'workers', or should I say 8 year old boys, were treated worse than slaves.


Yes. Industrial Revolutions -suck-. I've noted this several times.

Oh, wait, gasp, look at the newspaper: It says it ended DECADES ago. Hurrah!


They had to work 12 hours a day in appauling and overcrowded conditions.


I'm sorry... are you suggesting that the past is the future....?

What are you on?


They were fined for the merest trifle, somtiems more than they were earning, that is if they recieved any wage at all.


Yes. Were.

People also used to use stone tools and hunt mammoths. Clearly, we must set up a conservation fund for mammoths and stones.


They were beaten regularly by the overseers and had to live in the notorious slums.


Past tense past tense past tense.


This is true capitalism.


No, it's pure free market capitalism. Capitalism lacks a 'true' form in and of itself, in reality. It's like chocolate that way. Unless you plan on eating cocoa beans, you're not going to get 'true' chocolate. All capitalism is "seek capital" and so forth. There is no true doctrine ideal behind it. People try to APPLY doctrines to it, but nobody really gives a damn about them.


You don't have any of the Trade Union or minimum wage laws you get today.


You also have the fact that the US government had some of the most rampant corruption in all of recorded history around this time. Laws existed, but nobody followed them. You do realize that illegal activities are not a way to judge a system, right? It's like saying if there's a bunch of murderers in a communist country, THAT is what makes it bad.


In fact these are all Socialist/Communist


Back the hell up. Socialism and Communism aren't even close to each other except that they add regulations. Unions are Socialist. Hell, the carpenter's union had an OATH you HAD to take to state that you were NOT a communist. Unions are -heavily- capitalistic. I'm fricking -in- the local Carpenter's Union. The whole point is wage negotiations.


ideas taken by the so called 'capitalist' governments in the 20th Century to keep the masses satisfied and to prevent a revolution like the 1917 Red Ocotober Revolution in Russia and the 1945 Revolution in China.


Like I said, I'm fine with socio-capitalism. Communism doesn't take in a fraction of how the world actually works.


Thus this theory of abolition of private ownership made sense to Karl Marx and to the vast majority of the European population in the 1900's.

If it was the Vast Majority, Europe would be communist. Vast Majorities can beat the hell out of powerful minorities.

And I'll bet you that the non-ass textile factories and so forth were all fine and dandy with private ownership. Yes, asses gain power more quickly, that's why there are economic LAWS put in place by responsible governments.

None of them eliminate private ownership, or simply hand over a rich person's money to a dead beat or the infirm.

ISnt 13 percent of Americans in pverty? Wouldnt it be nice to help out the people who are barely making it?
and of course communism solved all that for every other country who tried it.

My dad once said, "Marx was brilliant, but he was also brilliantly wrong."

Being a big fan of communism, I'd like to say that it would work on a large scale, but truly, the only way to have TRUE communism would be to wipe the entire populations memory of other forms of government, than, yeah, it'd work fine.

Advice and expertise can also be purchased on the free market, and it is subjective to all the pressures of goods on the free market. Therefore, those who offer the best advice and expertise for the respective price will succeed.
more importantly, in modern society with the internet. once you get a computer and an internet connection you have an infinite number of advisors and experts (see Google) at no cost other than the original computer and internet connection. (of course you can't blame Marx for not knowing about the internet.)

Not quite. Communism is total government control on the economy. Anarchy is total lack of government control on the people. Anarcho-Communism would therefore be something like the American Democratic party taken to a very extreme extreme (I hope that cements the two concepts in your head).
i asssume were talking about the Communism Marx proposed. this means that total government control would only exist in the intermediate period between revolution and "true" Communism in which government wont be needed. Hence the USSR is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics not Communist Republics even though the Communist party was the only one allowed.

Being a big fan of communism, I'd like to say that it would work on a large scale, but truly, the only way to have TRUE communism would be to wipe the entire populations memory of other forms of government, than, yeah, it'd work fine.

A form of government which only works if nobody knows about any other kind of government is silly. It's like saying "Rocks make great food if you destroy everything else which can possibly be eaten."

I really am enjoying this. And you know why? Because, dear Vittos, the only thing that seems to separate us, are misunderstandings and prejudices about eachother's point. The more I read your post, the more I believe that, in the end, we would agree just fine. ;)

Several hundred million was a typo, I got switched up between tens of millions and a hundred million, but the total deaths due to communist governments over the last decade exceeds, by some estimates, a hundred million.

Total deaths by war in the 20th century: 105M
Total deaths due to communist governments: 100M
Stalin Purge/Famines: 30M
Mao Famines: 30M

Well, not withstanding the fact that numbers can be manipulated (rememeber the adagio "with statistics you can prove anything"), it should also be reminded that the biggest communist governments (Russia and China) were also heavily engaged in population explosion coupled with mass deaths the two centuries before they were communist. For instance, Russia during tzar Alexander (start 19th century) had a population of 41 million (more than triple of France, who invaded Russia at that time), and kept special "military colonies" where all the inhabitans (serfs) were required to enlist in the army. The idea, therefore, was not new. And seeing as how the world has evolved, I don't think a new communist regime will go down the same path. Social and economic science has evolved a lot since then, and a new implementation of the communistic idea would be very different on almost all matters (even, and especially on social and political subject matters).

And the production of guns would exist were capitalism to have never been heard of.

Sad, but true... Although I would say that the higher the need to profit, the higher the gun ratio - hence, I still believe that in a commune society (I'm trying to steer clear from the word "communist" since it seems everyone then sees some guy with a heavy moustache appearing, which is not my intent) since the need for profit is abolished, the need for guns will be at least a lot lower... I can hope.


I am talking about the fact that, in developed capitalistic countries the amount of people who have to scrap just to survive are rare. It is in the undeveloped countries where that is a problem. Communism will not spur on economic development, Stalinist or otherwise, and will continue to leave the citizens in poverty.

27% of the Belgian population lives beneath what they call "the poverty line". And we are, on that matter, one of the best developed countries in the European Union - so it's (a lot) worse in other places. In the U.S., the figure is a lot larger, but is difficult to determine exactly since the quantitative borders are different than ours (for instance, the owning of a TV is not a consideration of not being poor in my country). I believe that, when using our standards, slightly less than 40% of the U.S. citizens would be considered poor. But I admit, I don't remember exactly (it was a figure of 2000).


I doubt that the people who built the Hilton empire would agree that their fortunes are all due to randomness.

I never said they were. I just said that Paris' chances are all due to randomness - she could just as easily been born in a trailer park in Kansas, and then she would probably not be designing her own clothes, talented or not. That's all I said, that's all I meant.

You are correct, I retract my statement and apologize.

No prob, I thankfully and eagerly accept your apologies.


Fairness is treating everyone equally. That I think we can agree with. In my opinion, inorder to do this, the valuation of all subjective entities and abstracts must be left up to the individual. Only objective values should be set at the societal level.

Well, see, that's the problem. Objective values are non-existent (they are, in effect, a paradox). They still have to be "decided", hence are value-laden - and emotional. And treating everyone equally, I'm all for. That's why I'm at heart more a social and economic communist than a social and economic capitalist. Because of the lack of equal chances in the latter option.

Look at it this way, everyone assigns different values to everything, goods, services, laws, representation in government, etc. So that means that if society were to set universal values to these things, then the individuals would be affected positively or adversely depending on their own valuation of those things. This means that society must work to not assign objective universal values to subjective individual aspects.

I totally agree. Almost everyone regards the world in a totally different matter. And society should strive to have those different views complement eachother (hence, IMO, in a communist organisation) and not battle eachother so that one wins out. My view of communism is at heart very liberal and very "close to the people". The people decide on what they value. But a culture of mass consumption, that serves perfectly the concept of profit, and is at heart the conceptualisation of the capitalist society, is not essential to human existence IMO. But you (and I) should understand that whenever there is society, there is also socialization of values (the sociological process, not the political term). Hence, your values are very much a product of the culture you are born into. There is room to adjust, but not as much as you think.

You are saying that fairness is a abstract idea based on an individual's rational, moral, and emotional values. I am saying that that is quite true, so that the reasonable thing to do is to allow the individual to determine what is fair for themselves. Therefore, the only government role should be to allow complete personal freedom up to the point of imposing on another individual. Capitalism allows for that, communism doesn't.

I disagree. Capitalism allows your view of fairness to hamper others, depending on how economically powerful you are. In communism (in my view), everyone gets equal chances, and differences (which are always to be expected) can be lived out without hampering others. Communism (or better, my view on it, how I would implement it) does not want to root out differences, on the contrary. It wants those differences to be able to be lived out, and maybe in the process create a dynamic that truly serves the rest of society - in other words, we are, thus we differ, thus we complement eachother.

Caring always leads to bias. When we allow things that have a set of values to cast judgement on our lives, we immediately cause those who have a different set of values to be put at a disadvantage. If judgement without caring were a bad thing, why do trial courts operate around a group of totally unbiased, uncaring individuals.

Caring always leads to bias, true. It has to. And it is part of our human nature. A system that "does not care" is arbitrary, as I said: a roll of the dice. As I said above, I want differences to be respected, I want criticism - only then will there truly be a "society" in the literal sense. But there has to be tolerance as well, and I see that lacking in current capitalism. And trial courts are not unbiased, and not uncaring. Socrates once said; to make a correct judgment, it will only do to know no facts at all about the case presented. To make a fair decision however, it will only do to know ALL the facts about the case presented. Bias cannot be avoided. Should not be avoided. We are both ratio and emotio - no need to ignore that, IMO. In a truly buddhist fashion, I would want to add that a decision should be made with both ratio and emotio, and guided by compassion.

It is amoral, you cannot govern society based on morality because morality is so subjective.

Yet everything we do is determined by morals and values. That cannot be ignored, we are not machines (damn the Enlightenment's positivistic inheritance!)

Also, the quantitative influencing is determined by the individual values of the people. Prices and wages are determined by the demand and supply for goods and labor, the demand and supply are determined by individual desires for goods, which is driven by personal values.

*nods* In communist society, if people needed something more, then more would be needed to produce. It's just as simple.

As for the rest, I don't quite grasp what you are meaning by "the human 'language' of living."

Eh... Yes. Well, there are some social scientists (Bourdieu, Levi-Strauss) who are called 'linguistics' (not literally), but it has nothing really to do with that. It's just that we live both through ratio and emotio, that's our "language". And a system is purely arbitrary and rational, therefore it doesn't speak our "language", and is not in capacity to really run our lives, not in the way it does now.


I don't believe they should be punished or looked after, just be allowed to make the most out of their existence that they can.

I agree. They should be given responsability as well, and be regared as part of society nonetheless - able bodied or not.

As for this "roll of the dice", you cannot do away with luck without doing away with freedom, you cannot insure safety without eliminating liberty, risk and reward is a part of life.

Doing away with luck is doing away with freedom? I don't understand. Seeing as how freedom lets choose "freely" and luck determines your choice, I think it is quite opposite. And indeed, risk and reward are part of life - IMO, they are to be considered as part of society. I'd rather have less luck for me if it means a bit more luck for many, and less bad luck for me if it means a bit more bad luck for me. The excesses, then, will be kept in check, and life will be more balanced for all involved, IMO. It's like a family that helps those in need, and a friend who won the lottery buying drinks for his friends.

I guess if you are that worried about biological differences, then we can just outlaw birth.

I never would - because I see differences as part of society, as a means to complement eachother (see above). In my view, it's capitalists that want and reward "only the most able bodied that are able to produce the most". People are people, not producers.


Capitalism is an economic system. In a society, the economic role of a person is just that, a producer or a consumer, so no matter what economic system that is imposed, the person will still be a producer and a consumer. Capitalism allows the person the freedom to act as an individual within the economy of a society, communism does not.

I don't think that's true. First of all, capitalism nowadays actually determines society, it's by far not "just economics". it determines laws, cultures, etc. Communism allows freedom to act individually too, you know - you are still, as an individual, part of society. You work for others as well as yourself, and others will work for you too. Private thoughts and practices are still approved of, at least I would ;)


In a communism, there is no privately owned capital, so by extension there is no privately owned labor.

You do not sound like someone who would support communism, but someone who would support a Rousseau-esque liberalism.

Touché, but only because you have an outdated view of communism.


Damn, my time is up. Gotta go, but will adress the rest another time!

Until next time VO :)

I have a feeling that our differences lie deeper than you realize. I believe that we have a very different set of core values. However, that doesn't mean we can't have a reasonable discussion.

I am going to break this down into several core differences that I think we have, at least concerning capitalism.

First, let me say that we can disregard negative connotations regarding the terms that we use. I know that when you refer to communism you are not referring to Stalinist communism, and you know that when I am referring to capitalism, I am not referring to corporatism.

1. The resolutions of differing subjective values:

We both agree that societal values are determined subjectively. We all value goods, labor, dollars, and each other differently.

Where we differ is in how we mold society to handle these differences. I am arguing that subjective valuation is natural and should not be hindered. Capitalism offers individuals the ability to decide how much they value a good and how much they value their own labor or another person's labor. It does away with objective valuation and allows people to trade depending on their own core values.

Communism handles the problem of subjective valuation in the exact opposite fashion. It takes away the subjective valuation in exchange for a society set objective value. Labor is no longer a free commodity, it is now a society possessed commodity.

2. The Nature of Free Market Valuation

I am unsure what you believe about the nature of the free market and its valuation of labor. I do feel that you misunderstand the very nature of the free market, though. You see the free market is a market that is free of economic coersion.

By eliminating all instances of economic theft, the economy becomes completely democratic. All individual values in society factor into the value of a good. If the members of society feel that a good belongs on the market, then they will offer a monetary value to those that provide it. As the price of a good rises over its fair value, then inventories of the good will rise, and the companies inhabiting the market will lower prices to liquidate the inventories and avoid waste. As the prices go lower, inventories will drop and the companies will both raise prices and produce more.

As for labor, the demand for goods drives this. As the society's aggregate demand for goods rises, so does the demand for labor. Labor is valued at the level of utility it provides for society. If a company needs to produce more goods to fulfill society's needs, it will hire more workers, in order to hire more workers, wages will rise. The same goes if demand for goods drop.

So capitalism does not rely on this impersonal arbitrary process that you say it does. It relies on the personal values and wants of everyone within the society.

3. The fairness of Capitalism

I obviously believe in the exploitation of the worker. I would like for you to point out just where the exploitation takes place.

In my opinion, a capitalism offers the worker sufficient opportunities to provide his labor. Exploitation of the worker would require every one of these places to be offering him less than his labor value. However, the profit motive would not allow this to happen.

Take this for example, a worker offers labor utility at a rate of $20/hr. One company offers him a $10 an hour wage. Another company recognizes that they can make a profit simply by offering him a $15/hr wage. Another company can better this by offering him $19/hr. This continues until a company offers him a wage that equals the utility he provides.

4. The Role and Morality of Government

Society cannot govern itself on morality. It must strive to be as objective as possible, and that means that it must ignore all but the most universal moralities. Anything further than that would mean further subjection of the individual to society.

5. Luck, Risk and Reward, Safety and Freedom

This is a matter of risk versus reward. All decisions have a measure of uncertainty, this is the risk and reward concept, a decision can work out bad or it can work out good, depending on the circumstances. Where safety and freedom come into play is in the determination of the risk and reward allowed. Safety can be considered a limitation on reward in order to limit risk. This runs counter to freedom, which determines the maximum level of risk and reward allowed, maximum freedom = maximum risk = maximum reward possible.

Luck comes into play when we are considering the risk. In order to eliminate the luck we must eliminate the risk. This means we must use safety as a limitation to risk and reward. To add safety means to reduce freedom.

So to eliminate luck, you would have to eliminate freedom.

In your own respected opinion, will communism ever work? Why do you think like that? If not, then why not, and if so then why will it work? Just trying to see where everyone stands on this issue. Three well thought out ideas about the pro's and cons would be good also.

I don't think it'll work... you know... history doesn't have anything good to say about it really...

For communism to work there needs to be a central planning commitee(sp?) with power over everything. This invariably ends up in a corrupted government. It can never work because poeple givin to temptation too easily.

2. The Nature of Free Market Valuation

I am unsure what you believe about the nature of the free market and its valuation of labor. I do feel that you misunderstand the very nature of the free market, though. You see the free market is a market that is free of economic coersion.

3. The fairness of Capitalism

I obviously believe in the exploitation of the worker. I would like for you to point out just where the exploitation takes place.

In my opinion, a capitalism offers the worker sufficient opportunities to provide his labor. Exploitation of the worker would require every one of these places to be offering him less than his labor value. However, the profit motive would not allow this to happen.

Free Market???? All of these are 'brave words' used by capitalist governments to keep the masses happy. If you actually analysed the economic development of a capitalist country, it's got as much free market as the restricted buying and selling in the Middle ages.

If capitalism is so fair, then what's the point of inventing an alternative economic system like Communism? If capitalism is so good then why bother starting global revolutions during the 20th Century like the 1917 Revolution by the Bolsheviks in Russia?

Free Market???? All of these are 'brave words' used by capitalist governments to keep the masses happy. If you actually analysed the economic development of a capitalist country, it's got as much free market as the restricted buying and selling in the Middle ages.

The free market is growing in power and effectiveness don't worry. As economies develop and the markets grow, the economy will free itself of government regulation.

If capitalism is so fair, then what's the point of inventing an alternative economic system like Communism? If capitalism is so good then why bother starting global revolutions during the 20th Century like the 1917 Revolution by the Bolsheviks in Russia?

Because some people made the poor judgement in thinking that equality and safety were more valuable than freedom. What they didn't realise is that by giving away their freedom they ensured that there would be no equality or safety.

That argument is bunk anyway. It can also go towards saying, "if Jews are the contributers to society that you say they are, why was there a holocaust?" Society hasn't exactly had a mistake free past, and to conclude that efforts at change meant that change was necessary is a faulty idea.

Can Communism succeed? That depends on our definitions of "Communism" and "success".

A completely equal distribution of income would hardly work, due to the often mentioned difficulty to motivate the population to work.

However, taking it down to a more realistic level, a system of planned economy where everyone gets what he deserves (i.e. equal to the value of his work, no property income whatsoever) isn't impossible. The only obstacle to that is the administrative difficulty in a complex planned economy.

A market system handles itself quite nicely, with the price of goods adjusting to make supply and demand equal each other. However, in a planned economy the administration has to set production quotas for thousands of industries, each dependant on the others. If the production of good X is to be increased, the production of its raw materials Y and Z also have to. Which have raw materials of their own to be increased, etc etc. Add to this that the economy develops and changes, with new products being invented all the time. God help the administration of such a system.

Communism can only work in small groups of like minded people. And that's if they're rather well off. Otherwise it's just a big pipe dream. Homeowner's associations are a form of communism and that works usually, but it only costs a couple hundred dollars a month. I personally dont like them as they are a pain in the arse and they do take away freedoms from the homeowner.

Because some people made the poor judgement in thinking that equality and safety were more valuable than freedom. What they didn't realise is that by giving away their freedom they ensured that there would be no equality or safety.

There is no such thing as true 'freedom', because firstly it won't work since society will just disintegrate. Secondly, I don't particularly think that the government would be too happy with anarchy? And what's the point of having freedom when you'd be too scared to even go outside because of crime and no safety in the neighborhood?

There is no such thing as true 'freedom', because firstly it won't work since society will just disintegrate. Secondly, I don't particularly think that the government would be too happy with anarchy? And what's the point of having freedom when you'd be too scared to even go outside because of crime and no safety in the neighborhood?

First I never made any mention of "true freedom." I admit that there must be limits to a person's freedom, almost everyone will agree with that. However, the maximum amount of freedom allowable to society should always be fought for.

Secondly, the idea that society will fall apart under unlimited freedom is a huge blow to the communist ideology. Communism assumes that, were the proper steps taken people will act for the betterment of society uncoerced. Either people can operate as a completely free society, or communist philosophy is faulty.