NationStates Jolt Archive

What are your thoughts on websites such as Ebay and to a lesser extent, Amazon, Overstock, and Google? All of these websites are mind bogglingly successful at the moment and likely to only grow more so in the coming years. We are entering a form of "web culture" these days that pretty much permeates daily life. Corporations of course are behind it all.

I'm just wondering how hardcore communists feel about it and how (or it) they would exist in your theoretical ideal of the world.

Thanks.

(Question somewhat inspired by this <--clicky (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/epic) but I really want to know how you feel about Ebay.)

I dunno about the Commies, but I'm a Socialist and I think it's indicative of the dearth of new ideas and innovations foisted upon us by the dictates of unfettered greed and the consumerites who wilfully prop up a decaying system.

Over to you, Fidel.

I dunno about the Commies, but I'm a Socialist and I think it's indicative of the dearth of new ideas and innovations foisted upon us by the dictates of unfettered greed and the consumerites who wilfully prop up a decaying system.

Over to you, Fidel.

Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

NEXT!

As long as it's free....

Bump... I wanted a real answer to this.

Its just another proponent of a capitalistic society. Its just buying low and selling high. They would serve no purpose in Communism. Things are provided by the state.

This was in response to ebay, btw.

They would serve no purpose in Communism. Things are provided by the state.

through magic?

the technologies represented by ebay and amazon and such seem to me like they represent an interesting possibility for future systems of distribution and as extra lines of feedback between consumers and producers. both of which would certainly be needed in a communist system as much as anywhere. also, an ebay-like system would seem to me to be a good way to shift used goods and materials between various individuals and communes.

through magic?

the technologies represented by ebay and amazon and such seem to me like they represent an interesting possibility for future systems of distribution and as extra lines of feedback between consumers and producers. both of which would certainly be needed in a communist system as much as anywhere. also, an ebay-like system would seem to me to be a good way to shift used goods and materials between various individuals and communes.

You see, this is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. With the rate technology in general (and the internet in particular) is advancing this sort of thing is looking more and more like THE future system of distribution in the capitalist system. Also, Ebay is exactly that, a good way to shift used goods and materials between various individuals. The "government" isn't going to supply you with antique collectables.

My point is that this is the way of the future, and at the moment it is corporate. Getting rid of it because it isn't in the Marxist mold doesn't say much for social progress... or any kind of progress for that matter.

Its just another proponent of a capitalistic society. Its just buying low and selling high. They would serve no purpose in Communism. Things are provided by the state.

This was in response to ebay, btw.
Say it with me. There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. A. Communist. State. Period.

Say it with me. There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. A. Communist. State. Period.

Say it with me. You. Are. An. Idiot. I. Did. Not. Claim. There. Was. A. Communist. State. Ever. But. If. You. Are. Claiming. There. Could. Never. Be. One. You. Are. Ignorant.

through magic?

the technologies represented by ebay and amazon and such seem to me like they represent an interesting possibility for future systems of distribution and as extra lines of feedback between consumers and producers. both of which would certainly be needed in a communist system as much as anywhere. also, an ebay-like system would seem to me to be a good way to shift used goods and materials between various individuals and communes.

I agree with Free Soviets (there's a first for everything). There are costs to distribution no matter how it is handled. If the government distributes all goods, you will have to pay more for the good than the actual production value just for the added role of government.

What I find interesting about these sites, especially Ebay, is that people are meeting in vast markets and buyers are meeting with sellers directly. The chains of distribution are removed, and products are going at the exact value that the bidder feels it is worth.

If anything, this shows that capitalism is capable of using the technology it produces to make distribution chains more efficient, effectively eliminating the overhead that communists call exploitation.

You see, this is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. With the rate technology in general (and the internet in particular) is advancing this sort of thing is looking more and more like THE future system of distribution in the capitalist system. Also, Ebay is exactly that, a good way to shift used goods and materials between various individuals. The "government" isn't going to supply you with antique collectables.

My point is that this is the way of the future, and at the moment it is corporate. Getting rid of it because it isn't in the Marxist mold doesn't say much for social progress... or any kind of progress for that matter.

Communism first deals with what people need, food, shelter, etc. Then they go onto wants.

Most antiques would probably be recycled, in an efficient system. Wants would be based on what the majority of people wanted. I will say that the internet would be useful in people voting in things in a democratic manner, as communism dictates.

I agree with Free Soviets (there's a first for everything). There are costs to distribution no matter how it is handled. If the government distributes all goods, you will have to pay more for the good than the actual production value just for the added role of government.

Its still cheaper than capitalism. In capitalism, the employer takes a good chunk of the workers money(as opposed to them equally sharing profits, based on work load). Then the worker is left with his relatively small amount of money, to buy horridly overpriced things. Things that cost ten cents to make, and are sold for over a dollar.

In communism, government would be taking on the distribution part of economy, which already exists with capitalism. Prices for things would go down(not that purchasing things would happen anyways in capitalism). The worker would end up getting more out of his work in the long run.

Say it with me. You. Are. An. Idiot. I. Did. Not. Claim. There. Was. A. Communist. State. Ever. But. If. You. Are. Claiming. There. Could. Never. Be. One. You. Are. Ignorant.
First of all you titanic putz, and yes I get that shot for free seeing as how you felt idiot was appropariatte, yes you did.

They would serve no purpose in Communism. Things are provided by the state. That means in communism there is a state. There isn't. Communism by definition is stateless. It is the period after socialism in which the state has withered and died leaving no government behind of any form. Contending there could be a communist state is akin to saying there could be an anarchist government. "Communist state" is a contradiction in terms.

Its still cheaper than capitalism. In capitalism, the employer takes a good chunk of the workers money(as opposed to them equally sharing profits, based on work load). Then the worker is left with his relatively small amount of money, to buy horridly overpriced things. Things that cost ten cents to make, and are sold for over a dollar.

Huge errors in this statement:

The owners of the company take their due proportion of the profit. In corporations, the owners are the stockholders, and they recieve their proportion of the profit in the dividend. This represents the amount that the business must pay for the owners to still have a profitable investment, otherwise they would invest in government securities. So they are recieving their fair portion.

Products are not overpriced, as their prices represent the utility that the consumer receives from the purchasing the product. If the price is too high, they won't purchase it. For necessities the markets are so huge that competitors and substitutions are readily available. Those differences between production value consists of overhead, imbedded taxes, and resource and product distribution chains. That overhead and distribution cost will still be present in the communist state.

Xhadam,

no idea whether you are a Communist or not (I am certainly not, considering my country joint the anti-communist league), you are absolutely right.

No state under Communism -- and Communism can only be once the entire world has come under the sway of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the first place.

I am NOT going to discuss commusim here, just this much: Marx has never been an anti-Capitalist -- he actually thought it was cool, unilke Adam Smith, who thought the free market was pretty scary. You don't believe that? Well, unlike you, I have read both. Capitalism, by the way, was invented by Marx (the word, that is).

Marx just thought that communism was inevitable. All you Communist Activists out there, go read Marx and shut up and leave the rest of the world alone. Either Marx was right, and Communism comes on it's own accord (in which case it's like the eventual Big Crunch -- shitty, but just the way it is), or Marx was wrong, in which case you should try to accept that he was wrong and shut up and leave the rest of the world alone.

So, in either case, shut up and leave the rest of the world alone.

Got it?

Oh, and read Mark -- I'd recommend a Marx-Engels reader for starters, Communist manifesto and post-marx shit won't cut it. And shut up.

And read Popper "The Poverty of Historicism" (if you don't shuckle at the title, it means you have never read Marx, so shut up). After you read Popper, all you really have left to do is shut up.

Did I mention you should shut up?

Ok.

Shut up.

If anything, this shows that capitalism is capable of using the technology it produces to make distribution chains more efficient, effectively eliminating the overhead that communists call exploitation.

Not quite. Someone has to make those products and if the profits end up the pockets of capitalists, they are still being exploited.

First of all you titanic putz, and yes I get that shot for free seeing as how you felt idiot was appropariatte, yes you did.

A flame is still a flame, no matter what the other person said.

Be the bigger person and when you are insulted, stay reasonable. That way they will be forced to back off with the insults or be shown to be an idiot.

To many threads are ruined by people thinking that insults are best dealt with through further insults.

Say it with me. You. Are. An. Idiot. I. Did. Not. Claim. There. Was. A. Communist. State. Ever. But. If. You. Are. Claiming. There. Could. Never. Be. One. You. Are. Ignorant.

Oh? And here I thought Communism was supposed to be a "stateless and classless society." Oh wait... I was right. :rolleyes:

Communism first deals with what people need, food, shelter, etc. Then they go onto wants.

Most antiques would probably be recycled, in an efficient system. Wants would be based on what the majority of people wanted. I will say that the internet would be useful in people voting in things in a democratic manner, as communism dictates.

Ahh ha! You see, and there in lies the total suckage!

Oh, one more thing.

You should also read Hannah Arendt (her book on totalitarianism) to understand that communist ideology is just as bad as nazism. It is inhumane and dehumanizing when accepted as it was proposed by Marx, Engels, and most of all Lenin (too bad there is no Hell for that swine to rot in).

Not quite. Someone has to make those products and if the profits end up the pockets of capitalists, they are still being exploited.

Profits represent the return on the capitalist's capital that is the foremost important thing in the production of goods.

Capital is unconsumed wages, wages represent your labor that you have used up, but not consumed, so capital represents your unused labor.

So, capitalists spend their labor to form these companies, and recieve the return on their labor that the society sees fit to give them.

Ekland,

yeah, you got it. Only a communist - as s/he is a totalitarian by instinct - would not understand what you refer to as 'suckage'.

Ekland,

yeah, you got it. Only a communist - as s/he is a totalitarian by instinct - would not understand what you refer to as 'suckage'.

Heh... so true. :D

Xhadam,

no idea whether you are a Communist or not (I am certainly not, considering my country joint the anti-communist league), you are absolutely right. Interesting question. I am both a socialist of sorts and not. I think socialism is a solution to the problems of capitalism but it is one of many and not inevitable.

No state under Communism -- and Communism can only be once the entire world has come under the sway of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the first place. Yup.

I am NOT going to discuss commusim here, just this much: Marx has never been an anti-Capitalist -- he actually thought it was cool, unilke Adam Smith, who thought the free market was pretty scary. You don't believe that? Well, unlike you, I have read both. Capitalism, by the way, was invented by Marx (the word, that is). Pretty accurate.

Marx just thought that communism was inevitable. All you Communist Activists out there, go read Marx and shut up and leave the rest of the world alone. Either Marx was right, and Communism comes on it's own accord (in which case it's like the eventual Big Crunch -- shitty, but just the way it is), or Marx was wrong, in which case you should try to accept that he was wrong and shut up and leave the rest of the world alone. Or you can accept more modern theories of socialism that does not paint it as inevitable. Many of the continental philosophers of the 20th century such as Lucaks for example. Adam Smith's "capitalism" for lack of a better word in no way resembles actual capitalism, his model didn't even have profit, but he is still considered the ancestor of modern capitalism in much the same way modern socialism can look to Marx, Engles, Lenin, etc. at theirs.

So, in either case, shut up and leave the rest of the world alone.

Got it? No thanks. The only way I can tell if my ideas and beliefs are valid is to see if there are problems with them. The best way to do that is with the public discourse.

But is it not exploitation of workers to have their products of their labor devided among other people?

Profits represent the return on the capitalist's capital that is the foremost important thing in the production of goods.

Capital is unconsumed wages, wages represent your labor that you have used up, but not consumed, so capital represents your unused labor.

So, capitalists spend their labor to form these companies, and recieve the return on their labor that the society sees fit to give them.

well, they certainly spend somebody's labor to form them, anyway.

Ekland,

yeah, you got it. Only a communist - as s/he is a totalitarian by instinct - would not understand what you refer to as 'suckage'.

They are not totalitarian, they are extremely egalitarian.

They are egalitarian to the point that they wish to remove all risk and reward. In other words, equal rights through no rights.

what is a more free way off production? everyone working tofether to have their products devided among themselves (by force or enlightened culture) or by a buisiness owner and the employee working out a wage for the employee's labor?

Xhadam,

I am willing to discuss socialism. Or social-market economy (as once practiced in Germany or Sweden).

I am not a so-called neo-liberal (I shudder when I think how the word liberal has been degraded thus) - I am for regulation of the Market, for example.

And, since you are clearly not a Marxist or Communist, there is no reason for you to shut up -- at least you are willing to discuss and don't think that your particular view of the world is inevitably true.


(Don't worry, I would never support a LAW that would force Communists to shut up, but I take the liberty to tell them to shut up, because there is simply no other way discussing with totalitarians).

and Socialism is NOT per se totalitarian.

But is it not exploitation of workers to have their products of their labor devided among other people?

Their wages, under a true capitalist system (they can call for true communist system, so I can call for a true capitalist system) would equal exactly enough to buy back the portion of the final goods that they were responsible for producing.

So once a factory worker provides enough labor to have built a car, he would have been paid wages enough to buy a car.

They are not totalitarian, they are extremely egalitarian.

They are egalitarian to the point that they wish to remove all risk and reward. In other words, equal rights through no rights.

interesting point. varying groups of people will have rights deminished while others have artificial rights inflated. This is the oppresive group so its alright to impose harsher penalties on them such as outlawing public displays of christmas while promoting kawanza in schools.

They are not totalitarian, they are extremely egalitarian.

They are egalitarian to the point that they wish to remove all risk and reward. In other words, equal rights through no rights.

Which when the dice are down... still results in total suckage.

Vittos,

you are funny. Well, totalitarianism IS egalitarian ... everybody has an equal chance to be killed of next in order to advance the inevitable progress of history (with apologies to Arendt for putting her ideas this crudely)

The "government" isn't going to supply you with antique collectables.

and even if the state did try to monopolize the distribution of knicknacks and second-hand video games, i would think that a ebay-esque system would work well for them. unless, come the revolution, everyone shall be given an equal number of old clocks and slightly damaged photo enlargers.

interesting point. varying groups of people will have rights deminished while others have artificial rights inflated. This is the oppresive group so its alright to impose harsher penalties on them such as outlawing public displays of christmas while promoting kawanza in schools.

If the government has the right to repress any groups rights, then no one has rights. Generally, most communists stick to economic elimination of rights, but civil elimination of rights is a logical offshoot.

and even if the state did try to monopolize the distribution of knicknacks and second-hand video games, i would think that a ebay-esque system would work well for them. unless, come the revolution, everyone shall be given an equal number of old clocks and slightly damaged photo enlargers.
:D

Their wages, under a true capitalist system (they can call for true communist system, so I can call for a true capitalist system) would equal exactly enough to buy back the portion of the final goods that they were responsible for producing.

So once a factory worker provides enough labor to have built a car, he would have been paid wages enough to buy a car.


but there is also overhead, tools, other technical expertise performed by other people, production in large quantities to lower price etc. Idealy i would think in free trade the person would not only be able to buy a car from his labor but he would also be able to pick out the one he wants and not have to wait in line for it. Also in free trade i would think he would be able to have money left over to purchase essentials, and non essentials.

If the government has the right to repress any groups rights, then no one has rights. Generally, most communists stick to economic elimination of rights, but civil elimination of rights is a logical offshoot.

cultural marxism my friend. today we call it liberalism :headbang:

Vittos,

I am getting worried you may also have read some Hayek:)

You are leaving most Communists behind intellectually by doing this. They can't follow.


Honestly, communist ideology, just like anti-semitism and racism, is -- in my opinion -- an intellectual disease.


(Yeah, this is flaming -- the Marxists killed about a hundred million people for their ideas, if all I do is flame them, I think it's not too bad)

Vittos,

you are funny.

Thank you.

Well, totalitarianism IS egalitarian ... everybody has an equal chance to be killed of next in order to advance the inevitable progress of history (with apologies to Arendt for putting her ideas this crudely)

That is an asinine statement. Are you saying that those in power have equal rights to those that are suppressed?

Totalitarianism is the complete opposite of egalitarianism. It is the almost complete shifting of rights from one group of people to another group. The citizens have virtually no rights, while those in the governmental circle have virtually unlimited rights.

In almost all totalitarian countries, citizens have lost their right to free speech, press, religion, and voting. While those in power still have the right to kill.

cultural marxism my friend. today we call it liberalism :headbang:

Some parts of liberalism are getting bad, but on a whole social liberalism remains pretty close to the original liberal movement.

Ooohhhh... Big words....

Thank you.



That is an asinine statement. Are you saying that those in power have equal rights to those that are suppressed?

Totalitarianism is the complete opposite of egalitarianism. It is the almost complete shifting of rights from one group of people to another group. The citizens have virtually no rights, while those in the governmental circle have virtually unlimited rights.

In almost all totalitarian countries, citizens have lost their right to free speech, press, religion, and voting. While those in power still have the right to kill.

I can see where you are coming from, but I think you may have fallen into the same trap as most people who think that totalitarianism is just another form of dictatorship. It is not. Totalitarianism, as I understand Arendt's definition of it, is in one way extremely egalitarian, namely in that NOBODY is safe, not even the most powerful circles. In a way, totalitarian societies don't even have a real government in the sense that even the most dastardly tin-pot dictatorship has a government.

Totalitarian systemes are Movements -- they don't have structures, and for a dictatorship, you need some structure at least.

I am sorry to be this opaque, but I am too impatient to detail the theory in THIS forum.

IF you have some time, give Hanna Arendt's book on the topic a shot. I am not trying to pull a 'don't talk to me unless you read what I have read' stunt. All I am saying is that I am not going to elaborate on these points here for practical reasons.

If you read her book, you may find the first two parts very exhausting and may be a little off-topic, but once you get to the third part -- on totalitarianism -- you will see it was worth the while.

IF you lack the time, just read the third part (it's rather short, too), and you will at least see what I have been trying to say (though you are still free to disagree) :cool:

but there is also overhead, tools, other technical expertise performed by other people, production in large quantities to lower price etc. Idealy i would think in free trade the person would not only be able to buy a car from his labor but he would also be able to pick out the one he wants and not have to wait in line for it. Also in free trade i would think he would be able to have money left over to purchase essentials, and non essentials.

It is completely unfeasible for the factory worker to get his pick of cars, even if they were reserved solely for factory workers. Each factory workers claim on each car is so minute that it would be impossible to divide them up according to wants and earnings.

The factory worker made no contribution towards the production of the food. Therefore he must not spend the labor he used to produce a car on a car, as he must compensate the farmer for his labor on the food. The farmer does not keep all of his produce, as he must compensate the factory worker for the car.

Vittos,

I am getting worried you may also have read some Hayek:)

Only in passing, I know who he is and some of the stuff he wrote and said, but most of my knowledge on this stuff comes indirectly.

I am a big fan of Austrian economics, though.

I can see where you are coming from, but I think you may have fallen into the same trap as most people who think that totalitarianism is just another form of dictatorship. It is not. Totalitarianism, as I understand Arendt's definition of it, is in one way extremely egalitarian, namely in that NOBODY is safe, not even the most powerful circles. In a way, totalitarian societies don't even have a real government in the sense that even the most dastardly tin-pot dictatorship has a government.

Totalitarian systemes are Movements -- they don't have structures, and for a dictatorship, you need some structure at least.

I am sorry to be this opaque, but I am too impatient to detail the theory in THIS forum.

IF you have some time, give Hanna Arendt's book on the topic a shot. I am not trying to pull a 'don't talk to me unless you read what I have read' stunt. All I am saying is that I am not going to elaborate on these points here for practical reasons.

If you read her book, you may find the first two parts very exhausting and may be a little off-topic, but once you get to the third part -- on totalitarianism -- you will see it was worth the while.

IF you lack the time, just read the third part (it's rather short, too), and you will at least see what I have been trying to say (though you are still free to disagree) :cool:

I will see if the Gutenberg project has it. If not it will be a while before I get around to it. I am always interested in this sort of stuff, but right now all of my reading time is devoted to getting my real estate license.

Vittos,

I am getting worried you may also have read some Hayek:)

You are leaving most Communists behind intellectually by doing this. They can't follow.


Honestly, communist ideology, just like anti-semitism and racism, is -- in my opinion -- an intellectual disease.


(Yeah, this is flaming -- the Marxists killed about a hundred million people for their ideas, if all I do is flame them, I think it's not too bad)

Now I think they are leaving you behind intellectually as anyone who knows anything about the hundreds of million killed under communism will tell you a.) capitalism has a higher death toll still, and b.) that the people who did it were not communists of any descript.

Now I think they are leaving you behind intellectually as anyone who knows anything about the hundreds of million killed under communism will tell you a.) capitalism has a higher death toll still, and b.) that the people who did it were not communists of any descript.


Xhadam,

re. a) how many people were killed with the STATED intent of advancing the free market?

supplemental: please account for a rough estimate of humans killed deliberately to advance the free market

supplemental 2) not hundredS of millions, but approximately a hundred million in less than a century. In other words, people inspired by Marxism managed to deliberately cause the death of one million people per year in order to advance their political cause.



b) note that I said Marxists


Keep in mind, as a socialist, you'd not fare well under a Marxist regime -- at least that's what history indicates.

Now I think they are leaving you behind intellectually as anyone who knows anything about the hundreds of million killed under communism will tell you a.) capitalism has a higher death toll still, and b.) that the people who did it were not communists of any descript.

a) Capitalism does not kill people, it allows people to die. I hope someday society gets to a point where free people will be charitable enough to give up a portion of their earnings to help out those that may die from the predicament.

The problem with communism, however, is that, until society reaches that point, the people are oppressed and forced into labor that they do not receive their appropriate return. After we reach the point where a free society will act altruistically, communism is completely obsolete.

b) The argument that they were not true communist is junk for two reasons:

1. They started out with communistic ideals. That communism is naturally prone to totalitarianism in its development stage due to the subservience of the citizen, is one of the huge downfalls of communism.

2. Those governments have been the only ones that have claimed communism, and until one actually sprouts up that is different from those, they are the standard bearers.

As of now, you sound like the christians who claim that the people who fought the crusades were not actually christian.

Xhadam,

re. a) how many people were killed with the STATED intent of advancing the free market? Who cares? I can call myself a vegitarian all I like, but if I'm eating steak it isn't true.

supplemental: please account for a rough estimate of humans killed deliberately to advance the free market The last time I saw it was roughly 114 Million, which is achieved through adding the death toll of WWI, WWII, both fought because of Germany emerging as a capitalist power and Britain and France not wanting the competition, the Conquistadors and other colonial period deaths, etc.

supplemental 2) not hundredS of millions, but approximately a hundred million in less than a century. Nitpickery at best. In other words, people inspired by Marxism managed to deliberately cause the death of one million people per year in order to advance their political cause. Stalin was not Marcist by any stretch. As covered earlier, no Marxist society can have a communist government and yet that is exactly what Stalin went for. Mao too rejected the proletariat entirely in favor of the peasantry. They Simply were not Marxist.



b) note that I said Marxists
You did. And Marxists had nothing to do with it.

Keep in mind, as a socialist, you'd not fare well under a Marxist regime -- at least that's what history indicates.

Probably, but at the same time I get lumped in with them often enough i have had to learn the difference between my theories, theirs, and those who claim to be Marxists and communists but really aren't. Let's give credit to the oppressive tyrants who pretended to be communists instead of blaming the system they pretended to believe in.

a) Capitalism does not kill people, it allows people to die. I hope someday society gets to a point where free people will be charitable enough to give up a portion of their earnings to help out those that may die from the predicament. This is true until you being counting acts of capitalistic imperialism, in which case cpaitalism does actually kill.

The problem with communism, however, is that, until society reaches that point, the people are oppressed and forced into labor that they do not receive their appropriate return. After we reach the point where a free society will act altruistically, communism is completely obsolete. Then what will exist?

b) The argument that they were not true communist is junk for two reasons:
No.

1. They started out with communistic ideals. That communism is naturally prone to totalitarianism in its development stage due to the subservience of the citizen, is one of the huge downfalls of communism. Irrelevant. I started off as a Christian. I am not a christian now, am I? The mere fact the revolution was hijacked by a petty would be dictator who promoted nationalistic forms of socialism, well, said he promoted nationalistic forms of socialism does not mean that it is inherently vulnerable to tyranny.

2. Those governments have been the only ones that have claimed communism, and until one actually sprouts up that is different from those, they are the standard bearers. We already covered this. Communist covernment is a contradiction in terms.


As of now, you sound like the christians who claim that the people who fought the crusades were not actually christian.

Did they worship Christ? Yes? Then they were christian. Did the Stalinists give control of the Soviet Union to the proletariat? Did they allow for the state to whither to instil golbal communism? Did their revolution go to a global scale? If you answerred no to these questions, they were not communists.

The last time I saw it was roughly 114 Million, which is achieved through adding the death toll of WWI, WWII, both fought because of Germany emerging as a capitalist power and Britain and France not wanting the competition, the Conquistadors and other colonial period deaths, etc.

What?

Please explain this comment. Especially explain how fascism=capitalist, and how Japan and the Soviet Union fit into your ideas.

This is true until you being counting acts of capitalistic imperialism, in which case cpaitalism does actually kill.

Capitalism does not dictate the role of government, it dictates no role of government. Imperialism is a governmental expansion and is not a capitalistic goal.

Then what will exist?

Anarchy with complete property rights. Charity is included in property rights. Taxation is not.

Irrelevant. I started off as a Christian. I am not a christian now, am I? The mere fact the revolution was hijacked by a petty would be dictator who promoted nationalistic forms of socialism, well, said he promoted nationalistic forms of socialism does not mean that it is inherently vulnerable to tyranny.

Stalin was a tyrant, he was also communistic. He did all that he could to maintain a powerful "socialism in one country". This involved killing off dissidents and and wiping out peasant resistence through enforced famine.

Trotsky stated that socialism in one country would be overrun by competitive capitalist countries. Stalin also knew this, but believed he could maintain the USSR through an iron fist enforcement of collectivist values. Castro was very much the same.

We already covered this. Communist covernment is a contradiction in terms.

The communist government is necessary to bring about the anarchy that we mentioned before. If the anarchy is able to come about without a communist government, then communism is completely obsolete.

What?

Please explain this comment. Especially explain how fascism=capitalist, and how Japan and the Soviet Union fit into your ideas.
Fascism is actually fairly close to State Capitalsim anyway but I assume you are objecting to WWII? WWII was nothing more than the continuation of WWI under new German management. The Treaty of Versailles destroyed Germany Economically which is what France and Britain wanted from the start for their own capitalist interests. In doing this, Hitler was able to come to power and the rest is history.

Japan went to war for thier own interests, economic and imperial interests, and the Soviet Union was drug in by Germany.

Capitalism does not dictate the role of government, it dictates no role of government. Imperialism is a governmental expansion and is not a capitalistic goal. Yes, it does. Economic interests, in particular those of influencial businesses, can greately influence government action and policy.

Anarchy with complete property rights. Charity is included in property rights. Taxation is not. Erm.. Communism is anarchy. I disagree with the property rights existing afterwards too. Allowing property rights just leads to fascism where the strongest individuals will take propert from everyone else.

Stalin was a tyrant, he was also communistic. He did all that he could to maintain a powerful "socialism in one country". This involved killing off dissidents and and wiping out peasant resistence through enforced famine. Which has nothing to do with communism nor socialism. Socialism or communism in one country is polar opposite of marxism and communism.

Trotsky stated that socialism in one country would be overrun by competitive capitalist countries. Stalin also knew this, but believed he could maintain the USSR through an iron fist enforcement of collectivist values. Castro was very much the same. And Trotsky was right.

The communist government is necessary to bring about the anarchy that we mentioned before. If the anarchy is able to come about without a communist government, then communism is completely obsolete. Actually Communism states anarchy will come about through a socialist government. Communism and anarchy are the same end through different roads.

Both capitalists and socialists are prone to corruption, authoritianism, totalitarianism, but once they become these things they are no longer capitalist or socialist.

For example if a capitalist state goes authoritian is becomes fascist. If a socialist state becomes authoritian, it would be Stalinist or perhaps Marxist-Leninist.

Marxist-Communism is a 19th century solution to a 19th century problem. Communism must also change. If a modern, true socialist nation or communist society emerges the state must not be supreme(in socialism), a free-market must exist, the right of indiveduals must be in balance with society as a whole. Also people must not be absolutely equal in materal possessions.

I do not believe that the world or people are ready for a communist society, it is millenia away.

Yes, it does. Economic interests, in particular those of influencial businesses, can greately influence government action and policy.

If government acts in anyway to promote the economic standings or detract from the economic standings of its citizens, outside the protection of the free market, it is not an economic policy. If government acts in the specific interests of certain businesses, the policy is the antithesis of capitalism.

Capitalism is not about the growth of wealth in the economy, it is about the securing of freedom in the economy. Imperialism has no concern for securing the free market.

Erm.. Communism is anarchy. I disagree with the property rights existing afterwards too. Allowing property rights just leads to fascism where the strongest individuals will take propert from everyone else.

Property rights exist wherever people can choose how to use their own property. If anarchy exists, whether people are acting communal or not, capitalism exists, only in a horridly inefficient form.

Insuring property rights guarantees that fascism will not occur. Fascism is as polar from capitalism as communism, as it advocates a centralized control over the economy.

And I wonder if you realize that you just said that allowing property rights will allow people to take property from others. The only way to insure the free market and property rights is to protect the people from theft.

Which has nothing to do with communism nor socialism. Socialism or communism in one country is polar opposite of marxism and communism.

Oh, so if you have differing ideas about how to install and maintain communism, you are no longer communist?

And Trotsky was right.

In that aspect, yes.

Actually Communism states anarchy will come about through a socialist government. Communism and anarchy are the same end through different roads.

OK, so a communist country only comes about through a government that increasingly imposes communistic ideas, expecting people to accept this social order with time. Now this must mean there must be a completely communistic government at one point, in order to acclimate the public to a collectivist society.

Both capitalists and socialists are prone to corruption, authoritianism, totalitarianism, but once they become these things they are no longer capitalist or socialist.

For example if a capitalist state goes authoritian is becomes fascist. If a socialist state becomes authoritian, it would be Stalinist or perhaps Marxist-Leninist.

Marxist-Communism is a 19th century solution to a 19th century problem. Communism must also change. If a modern, true socialist nation or communist society emerges the state must not be supreme(in socialism), a free-market must exist, the right of indiveduals must be in balance with society as a whole. Also people must not be absolutely equal in materal possessions.

I do not believe that the world or people are ready for a communist society, it is millenia away.

The difference is that capitalism insures that people maintain the rights to protect themselves from corruption and oppression.

Communism, by its very nature, subverts the people to the will of the society and therefore are powerless to defend themselves except by revolution. However, due to the restriction of property rights, revolution is almost impossible to achieve, even if the public could overlook the rampant nationalism that is inherent in Communist nations. Look at what China has been able to do under the banner of Communism.

The difference is that capitalism insures that people maintain the rights to protect themselves from corruption and oppression.

Capitalism does't allow this. A democratic government does or atleast a government that respects human rights.

Edit: In my opinion of course.

Capitalism does't allow this. A democratic government does or atleast a government that respects human rights.

It doesn't really have to do with the style of government, although a democracy is necessary for both.

The difference I am referring to, is that a capitalistic economy respects the individual desires and values of the individuals, while a communistic government assumes that the individual is subservient to society.

That means that any right that an individual has to act outside or even against traditional society are considered of the utmost importance, while those rights are oppressed by a communist society.

So when someone is being limited or oppressed by society, a capitalistic society provides some avenues to escape it, a communistic society considers limitation and oppression of the individual to be imperative.

Edit: In my opinion of course.

95% of discussion posts are opinions, and I can distinguish. I respect your opinion as it is.

If government acts in anyway to promote the economic standings or detract from the economic standings of its citizens, outside the protection of the free market, it is not an economic policy. If government acts in the specific interests of certain businesses, the policy is the antithesis of capitalism.

Capitalism is not about the growth of wealth in the economy, it is about the securing of freedom in the economy. Imperialism has no concern for securing the free market.You can't have it both ways. First, you state that all of the Communist countries that have existed were corrupt, and that therefore inevitably Communism is corrupt, and therefore unfeasible. Then, you state that capitalism is separate from imperialism. The conundrum here is that every single capitalistic country has engaged in imperialism, either militarily, or economically (by government subsidy of products sold to other countries, thus flooding the local markets and putting local suppliers out of business.) Can you name one that hasn't?

Therefore, I can only see two options. Either you admit that capitalism is inevitably flawed and that the free market will never work, or you admit that in both cases, the ideology is separate from the people who espouse it, and that therefore in both cases the ideology can be applied, but has been perverted by people.

That means in communism there is a state. There isn't. Communism by definition is stateless. It is the period after socialism in which the state has withered and died leaving no government behind of any form. Contending there could be a communist state is akin to saying there could be an anarchist government. "Communist state" is a contradiction in terms.

Communism is not anarchy. Read the communist manifesto lately? I'll quote it, if you so need.

"The proletariat will... centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class..."

Marx uses the state as a word for a union of the people. Its self-governing, but its still a type of government.

Anyways, I've answered the thread question. This is getting into idiotic comparisons with totalitarian states, et al. No point to reply to people who dont want to learn, who just want to argue.

You can't have it both ways. First, you state that all of the Communist countries that have existed were corrupt, and that therefore inevitably Communism is corrupt, and therefore unfeasible. Then, you state that capitalism is separate from imperialism. The conundrum here is that every single capitalistic country has engaged in imperialism, either militarily, or economically (by government subsidy of products sold to other countries, thus flooding the local markets and putting local suppliers out of business.) Can you name one that hasn't?

I did not say that Communism was corrupt. I said that, due to its requirement of subverting the people to society, it is succeptable to the whims of corrupt politicians who operate under the flag of communism. Communism can operate as long as it is run by politicians who are genuine and kind, but those type of politicians are far from the norm.

As for capitalism, the people are have the intrinsic ability to control the economy and, indirectly, the economic policy of the government. Both are at risk of having corrupt politicians, but communism, by its nature, calls on the people to be subservient to them.

Therefore, I can only see two options. Either you admit that capitalism is inevitably flawed and that the free market will never work, or you admit that in both cases, the ideology is separate from the people who espouse it, and that therefore in both cases the ideology can be applied, but has been perverted by people.

Yes, in both cases the ideology has been applied and perverted. However, capitalist countries have, time and time again, shown themselves to be more resilient to long standing corruption and oppression.

If government acts in anyway to promote the economic standings or detract from the economic standings of its citizens, outside the protection of the free market, it is not an economic policy. I disagree. Economic policy does have significant overlap with social policy. For an easy example, simply look at the time when only White Men in the US were allowed to hold land. Clearly both economic and social in nature. If government acts in the specific interests of certain businesses, the policy is the antithesis of capitalism. In theory perhaps but in practice it never works that way. Capitalist nations such as the US most certainly do give special treatement to certain comapnies and coorporations. And before you begin, communism has never even been tried in theory.

Capitalism is not about the growth of wealth in the economy, it is about the securing of freedom in the economy. Imperialism has no concern for securing the free market. Capitalist economic rights, and I do not agree that they are economic rights at all, lead to imperialism because the accumulation of wealth becomes a driving goal of the capitalist class and this inevitably leads to conflict.



Property rights exist wherever people can choose how to use their own property. If anarchy exists, whether people are acting communal or not, capitalism exists, only in a horridly inefficient form. Only if it recognizess individual property to begin with.

Insuring property rights guarantees that fascism will not occur. Fascism is as polar from capitalism as communism, as it advocates a centralized control over the economy. Under a system of anarchy with property rights though, the personw ith the msot toys will be able to attract followers who he can use to take the toys of others. This leads to a gradual accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of an individual.

And I wonder if you realize that you just said that allowing property rights will allow people to take property from others. The only way to insure the free market and property rights is to protect the people from theft. Indeed, because if people can own things, it lets them use those things against other people to take thier things. For example, if I own a gun and ammo and you own food, I can take your food and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it nor can you expect anything in return except for me to not shoot you.


Oh, so if you have differing ideas about how to install and maintain communism, you are no longer communist? When it no longer resembles communism, no, you aren't.


OK, so a communist country only comes about through a government that increasingly imposes communistic ideas, expecting people to accept this social order with time. Firstly, there is no such thing as a communist country any more than there is an anarchist country. Nationalism is incompattible with communism. Second, Communism according to marxist theory comes from the decay of a socialist government. Now this must mean there must be a completely communistic government at one point, in order to acclimate the public to a collectivist society.No, just a decaying socialist one.

Communism is not anarchy. Read the communist manifesto lately? I'll quote it, if you so need.

"The proletariat will... centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class..."

Marx uses the state as a word for a union of the people. Its self-governing, but its still a type of government. That is the socialist government that comes before communism, not communism itself.

I disagree. Economic policy does have significant overlap with social policy. For an easy example, simply look at the time when only White Men in the US were allowed to hold land. Clearly both economic and social in nature. In theory perhaps but in practice it never works that way. Capitalist nations such as the US most certainly do give special treatement to certain comapnies and coorporations. And before you begin, communism has never even been tried in theory.

I meant that it is not a "capitalistic" policy not economic. Typo.

However, the disallowance of any minority from holding land was entirely social in nature. It did have economic ramifications, but the justification for it was completely social.

As for theoretical, both capitalism and communism are complete anarchy in theory, they are the same thing. How they differ is in how they expect to reach that theoretical phase. Capitalism allows freedom and hopes society evolves to a point where everyone is free and treated evenly, communism forces it on to society.

[/QUOTE]Capitalist economic rights, and I do not agree that they are economic rights at all, lead to imperialism because the accumulation of wealth becomes a driving goal of the capitalist class and this inevitably leads to conflict.[/QUOTE]

The accumulation of wealth is the driving goal of all classes, and it causes all classes to work together to acheive that goal.

Only if it recognizess individual property to begin with.

You cannot do away with individual property. That much is certain. The food on your dinner table is individual property.

Under a system of anarchy with property rights though, the personw ith the msot toys will be able to attract followers who he can use to take the toys of others. This leads to a gradual accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of an individual.

What stops that in any anarchy?

My point on this is, any anarchy would be capitalistic. If there is no government to removes the property rights, the people retain property rights. They are free to do whatever they want with their own property. If they are charitable and decide to share their produce with the entire community, it is still of their own choice, and therefore it is still capitalism.

Indeed, because if people can own things, it lets them use those things against other people to take thier things. For example, if I own a gun and ammo and you own food, I can take your food and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it nor can you expect anything in return except for me to not shoot you.

One last time, property rights are the abilities to use your property in a way that you see fit. If someone actively seeks to take away someone else's property, he/she is not respecting the other's property rights.

Firstly, there is no such thing as a communist country any more than there is an anarchist country. Nationalism is incompattible with communism. Second, Communism according to marxist theory comes from the decay of a socialist government.

Alright, explain how this comes about.

Being a hardcore communist i juts wanted to say: JESUS CHRIST PEOPLE! ANSWER THE GUYS QUESTION, HE ASKED COMMUNISTS!!!


And in response to the question: I don't like the corporations very much, google provides the service for free, so they are not that bad, i still dislike them, and every large corporation and in my personal theoretical ideal nation they would not exist since, as stated before they would be provided by the state.(This applies for Amazon and Ebay aswell).

I did not say that Communism was corrupt.

No, not exactly, that was my word. However, you did say (emphasis mine):


b) The argument that they were not true communist is junk for two reasons:

1. They started out with communistic ideals. That communism is naturally prone to totalitarianism in its development stage due to the subservience of the citizen, is one of the huge downfalls of communism.

2. Those governments have been the only ones that have claimed communism, and until one actually sprouts up that is different from those, they are the standard bearers.
I interpreted that to mean that you were saying communism was corrupt. You did not say that same thing exactly, so I apologize. But my point still remains. Every government/country that has claimed to be capitalist has been imperialistic in some way, so therefore they are the standard bearers.


I said that, due to its requirement of subverting the people to society, it is succeptable to the whims of corrupt politicians who operate under the flag of communism. Communism can operate as long as it is run by politicians who are genuine and kind, but those type of politicians are far from the norm.I agree, which is why I'm against the idea of consolidating power.


As for capitalism, the people are have the intrinsic ability to control the economy and, indirectly, the economic policy of the government. Both are at risk of having corrupt politicians, but communism, by its nature, calls on the people to be subservient to them.They have the ability to control the economy, however that ability is rarely exercised. I will compare it to the representative democracy that we have in the U.S. The people have the ability to vote for their representatives, however less than half of the people do so. Is this because people are failing the system, or because the system is failing the people?


Yes, in both cases the ideology has been applied and perverted. However, capitalist countries have, time and time again, shown themselves to be more resilient to long standing corruption and oppression.They are more resilient, I'll give you that, for they have the ability to take on elements of communism (or any other social system) whereas communism really can't budge too much. Of course, what frequently happens is that the politicians people have to choose from are simply varying stages of corrupt, and it is up to the voter to choose the least corrupt.

Okay, so the USA claims to be Christian, yet contrary to the teachings of Jesus, it hates its neighbours (like Cuba and Mexico) and bombs the shit out of everyone else. Does that make the USA the standard-bearer of Christianity?

A Stalinist country that calls itself communist is just that- a Stalinist country that calls itself communist. That doesn't make it communist. Just as the USA's calling itself Christian doesn't necessarily make it Christian.

Of course, now all you hardcore Texan fundementalists are going to be up in arms... :rolleyes:

No, not exactly, that was my word. However, you did say (emphasis mine):

I interpreted that to mean that you were saying communism was corrupt. You did not say that same thing exactly, so I apologize. But my point still remains. Every government/country that has claimed to be capitalist has been imperialistic in some way, so therefore they are the standard bearers.

Ok, you are right. Capitalistic countries have the tendency to be economically imperialistic, as global corporations sprout from capitalist nations. Governments have also worked tirelessly to help promote the nation's industries in foreign nation's markets. While I don't agree with the artificial help the government provides, a great deal of the time, the global expansion of corporations can bring a great deal more wealth to an area.

They have the ability to control the economy, however that ability is rarely exercised. I will compare it to the representative democracy that we have in the U.S. The people have the ability to vote for their representatives, however less than half of the people do so. Is this because people are failing the system, or because the system is failing the people?

If democratic government is failing the people, the people have the opportunity to change it. If they don't, they are merely being complacent and have no one else to blame but themselves. It goes for capitalism, too. The workers and consumers have a great deal of power in the system, if only they would take the measures to insure that they can keep it and use it.

I agree that people can act irresponsibly, but I believe the much of the populous will act responsibly if given the tools to do it.

They are more resilient, I'll give you that, for they have the ability to take on elements of communism (or any other social system) whereas communism really can't budge too much. Of course, what frequently happens is that the politicians people have to choose from are simply varying stages of corrupt, and it is up to the voter to choose the least corrupt.

That would be the case in any democratic system, communist or capitalist. Whether people are driven by power, prestige, or ideology, they are going to struggle to gain power in the government. Those that are good at fooling people are going to rise quickly.

That is just another reason why I think there should be the most limitations placed on government's ability to make policy as possible. Therefore, economic decisions and valuations should be as decentralized as possible.

Ok, you are right. Capitalistic countries have the tendency to be economically imperialistic, as global corporations sprout from capitalist nations. Governments have also worked tirelessly to help promote the nation's industries in foreign nation's markets. While I don't agree with the artificial help the government provides, a great deal of the time, the global expansion of corporations can bring a great deal more wealth to an area.Well, on one hand, bring wealth to an area can be a very good thing. On the other hand, it isn't if all of the wealth ends up concentrated in the hands of a few people. Typically this happens in places where there are concentrations of power, i.e. the third world. Business in capitalistic countries tend to invest in third world countries. Why is this? Why don't democratic capitalistic countries invest more in other democratic capitalist countries?


If democratic government is failing the people, the people have the opportunity to change it. If they don't, they are merely being complacent and have no one else to blame but themselves. It goes for capitalism, too. The workers and consumers have a great deal of power in the system, if only they would take the measures to insure that they can keep it and use it.

I agree that people can act irresponsibly, but I believe the much of the populous will act responsibly if given the tools to do it.What do you consider the tools to do it? Is it simply having the ability to do something? Or does it require something additional, an informed point of view, perhaps?


That would be the case in any democratic system, communist or capitalist. Whether people are driven by power, prestige, or ideology, they are going to struggle to gain power in the government. Those that are good at fooling people are going to rise quickly.

That is just another reason why I think there should be the most limitations placed on government's ability to make policy as possible. Therefore, economic decisions and valuations should be as decentralized as possible.I think all decisions should be as decentralized as possible, not just the economic ones.

Well, on one hand, bring wealth to an area can be a very good thing. On the other hand, it isn't if all of the wealth ends up concentrated in the hands of a few people. Typically this happens in places where there are concentrations of power, i.e. the third world. Business in capitalistic countries tend to invest in third world countries. Why is this? Why don't democratic capitalistic countries invest more in other democratic capitalist countries?

On the grand scale, I would say that investment in third world countries is miniscule compared to that invested in Europe and China/Hong Kong.

This is a tricky question. Most of the investment in those foreign nations are in resources, and labor. In any other sort of investment there is virtually no investment in these countries.

The effects of these two types of investments are inverse. The investment in labor brings wealth into the nation to workforce through outside investors. So the laborers of the nation are recieving wealth. Mexico, China, and Hong Kong, for example are benefiting from this.

The investment in resources brings wealth into the nation to the wealthy property owners through outside investors. So the wealthy of the nation are receiving wealth. Africa and the Middle East are good examples of this.

You are correct that foreign investment is prevalent in third world countries and can lead to the consolidation of power in those where investment is in resources. However, the oppression of those without property, and the eventual continuation of power amongst those with wealth because of the influx of money for resources is perpetuated by backscratching corrupt governments, not through capitalism.

What do you consider the tools to do it? Is it simply having the ability to do something? Or does it require something additional, an informed point of view, perhaps?

Freedom of action and information. Technology has advanced the ability of people to gather information and communicate to levels not even thought of before the 90's. Now what we need is for government to allow the people the ability to act freely on the info. Through tariffs, subsidies, and tax breaks, people are indirectly having their financial decisions made for them.

I think all decisions should be as decentralized as possible, not just the economic ones.

I agree completely, and the only way to do that is to limit government policy making, both centralized or decentralized.

On the grand scale, I would say that investment in third world countries is miniscule compared to that invested in Europe and China/Hong Kong.Well, certainly the Marshall Plan was a huge investment into Europe, but I can't really think of any major investments there in the last 25 years.


This is a tricky question. Most of the investment in those foreign nations are in resources, and labor. In any other sort of investment there is virtually no investment in these countries.

The effects of these two types of investments are inverse. The investment in labor brings wealth into the nation to workforce through outside investors. So the laborers of the nation are recieving wealth. Mexico, China, and Hong Kong, for example are benefiting from this.Hm. It's sort of hard to say, because while it is true that the laborers in those countries benefit, it's hard to say how they'd fare without intervention in their economies, and it's also hard to say how they'd benefit with a different type of intervention, such as building schools/cleaning water, etc.

You are correct that foreign investment is prevalent in third world countries and can lead to the consolidation of power in those where investment is in resources. However, the oppression of those without property, and the eventual continuation of power amongst those with wealth because of the influx of money for resources is perpetuated by backscratching corrupt governments, not through capitalism.Oh, I agree that capitalism isn't what's causing this. Economic systems in and of themselves don't do anything, it's the people within them that do things. My point is that capitalism allows such things to happen, and I'd go so far as to say that it encourages such things to happen.


Freedom of action and information. Technology has advanced the ability of people to gather information and communicate to levels not even thought of before the 90's. Now what we need is for government to allow the people the ability to act freely on the info. Through tariffs, subsidies, and tax breaks, people are indirectly having their financial decisions made for them.You don't feel that companies should be forthright about how well the product works, and under what conditions is was made? And if not, why not?


I agree completely, and the only way to do that is to limit government policy making, both centralized or decentralized.I don't see anything wrong with decentralized policy making if everyone is included in said policy making.

Well, certainly the Marshall Plan was a huge investment into Europe, but I can't really think of any major investments there in the last 25 years.

Well, I was referring to financial investment through securities, which is not that prevalent in the third world. Are you referring to spending on economic development?

Hm. It's sort of hard to say, because while it is true that the laborers in those countries benefit, it's hard to say how they'd fare without intervention in their economies, and it's also hard to say how they'd benefit with a different type of intervention, such as building schools/cleaning water, etc.

Does this mean you are talking about charity? The original question was "Why do democratic capitalist countries invest in third world countries, and not other democratic capitalist countries?" If you are referring to investing in charitable economic development, they invest in third world nations because the other nations don't need it.

Oh, I agree that capitalism isn't what's causing this. Economic systems in and of themselves don't do anything, it's the people within them that do things. My point is that capitalism allows such things to happen, and I'd go so far as to say that it encourages such things to happen.

Capitalism, when it is developed and fostered, discourages such things. When it is installed corruptly, there will be problems. It is easy enough to see this by looking at the Russian privatization, or the African nations who grant massive power to politically motivated individuals in the private sector, just so they can appear capitalistic to appeal to Western governments.

When it is allowed to freely evolve, it does not encourage oppression.

You don't feel that companies should be forthright about how well the product works, and under what conditions is was made? And if not, why not?

I feel that companies should be completely truthful. What I meant was that, we now have a society that has nearly unlimited information on products and investments, but the government does not let the people use this information freely.

I don't see anything wrong with decentralized policy making if everyone is included in said policy making.

The trouble with decentralized policy making is that it allows for different standards of rights amongst regions with varying social norms. Imagine the Southern US were there to be decentralized policy making.

Well, I was referring to financial investment through securities, which is not that prevalent in the third world. Are you referring to spending on economic development?Yes, I was thinking of spending on economic development.

Does this mean you are talking about charity? The original question was "Why do democratic capitalist countries invest in third world countries, and not other democratic capitalist countries?" If you are referring to investing in charitable economic development, they invest in third world nations because the other nations don't need it.Oh, no, I wasn't referring to charity. If it were charity, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I was referring to charity as opposed to economic investment, which is most of what goes on.

Capitalism, when it is developed and fostered, discourages such things. When it is installed corruptly, there will be problems. It is easy enough to see this by looking at the Russian privatization, or the African nations who grant massive power to politically motivated individuals in the private sector, just so they can appear capitalistic to appeal to Western governments.

When it is allowed to freely evolve, it does not encourage oppression.Ah, I see. Well, can you realistically see capitalism developing and being fostered in a manner that isn't corrupt, and how would that come about?

I feel that companies should be completely truthful. What I meant was that, we now have a society that has nearly unlimited information on products and investments, but the government does not let the people use this information freely.How does the government not allow people to use this information freely, and do you think government censorship of this information occurs at the behest of the corporations?

The trouble with decentralized policy making is that it allows for different standards of rights amongst regions with varying social norms. Imagine the Southern US were there to be decentralized policy making.Ah, I see. Well, on one hand I completely agree with you, and think that if there ever is a system of decentralized policy making, there should be an unalterable Constitution that all policies have to adhere to. On the other hand, we already have a system of decentralized policy making. For instance, in some states the death penalty is illegal, and in most it is legal. Where it is legal, there are many methods of doing it. Do you disagree with this type of decentralized policy making as well?