ForumsWEPRCommunism and Capitalism

126 32783
Drace
offline
Drace
3,900 posts
Peasant

I wanted to open up this topic again...
Hopefully I will get some thoughtful responses :-$
______

I think most people have the wrong view of communism.


The "equal pay" and the "you cant achieve anything" are not much to say. One whole thing of communists want to change is taking away the attention of people away from money. People are not born greedy. It is rather that we try to achieve. Who is to say people are born wanting to get more and more money? We just try to achieve goals. Look at Armorgames. The community here does not get anything over another, yet we are working our asses off trying to get AP. What we call greed comes from the process of people getting money, which usually involves "bad" behavior (The business world is cruel). Bill Gates, however rich, is not greedy.

Capitalism is like taking all of a persons freedoms away at birth and selling it to them when they can afford it it. You cant live without money. You rely on others for earning this money, but those who give it to you dont care of you. Employees are just concerned with getting their profit off you. The problem is, the road to getting a good job, housing, medical care, insurances, etc, are very though and cricket. There is no system for it. This is the freedom you supposedly have in capitalism! You are free to build your own road to happiness. Its like letting a baby do whatever he wants when it cant support itself. The mother should take of it. There is no system to get you settled. What communism does is create this system. No its not taking your freedom away, it is helping you by providing free education, health care, housing...

Its sad to see people say communists are evil, lol. Don't worry, we touch the existing evil with gloves on, it does not contaminate us.

  • 126 Replies
necromancer
offline
necromancer
750 posts
Shepherd

Wouldn't you rather have unification?


No, unification basically increases prices and decreases efficiency. Let's look to another example; in 1910, Bell Telephone (AT&T) was granted a monopoly in telephones. No other companies could compete legally, without competition they raised the prices exorbitantly and had no incentive to make telephones more consumer friendly or efficient. Such is the same when the government is the monopoly, it has no incentive to be more efficient or consumer friendly. Remember, as you said &quotublic education sucks," the state-operated services which are unified aren't as good as the individually offered services (except for the police, the military, and a few other services that logically only can operate as a whole).

Rather the wealth is determined by the means of production.
You don't split your earnings...
You earn your earnings by doing labor. Its not like your forced to donate your belongings, lol.
The good produced are given to the state, from there to the people. You need those other people to survive, because one cannot survive independently. Other workers produce other goods which will come to you! Its an equal balance.
The different between in a commune and capitalist society is WHO gets off your labor. Capitals earn the profit for themselves, as where in a commune they are either sold for a richer government and things like food are given to the people.


Sorry about the misunderstanding, there are different interpretations of both communism and capitalism; I was just going by Marx's famous dictum, "From each according to ability, to each according to need," which would suggest you slit your earnings according to need and equality. However, if you keep the money but the goods are distributed evenly, what good is the money? If you can't survive independently then how did the independent hunter-gatherers survive? How did Thoreau survive alone on Walden pond? You can only not survive as an independent individual in a collectivist society. Capitalists earn the profit for themselves giving them an incentive to work harder, and thus produce more for both themselves and society. A richer government just means a more powerful government more likely to abuse its people to siphon the money to corrupt politicians. When food is handed to the people they have little choice in what they get, I might want locally raised, organic, gluten-free food, but it is cheaper for the government to give me low-quality food. Where only the government wins and the producer of more expensive food is knocked out of the picture. In a capitalist society, I pay more for the choice food and both the seller and I benefit.

The wealth you have is like I said determined by how well the state is doing. If the state has a gagillion dollars, your wage increases. This way it is fair, through bad times, everyone will be hurt the same, in good times, everyone will benefit equally.


However, the laborer has no incentive to produce wealth and therefore the state will never have a gagillion dollars because the worker won't produce (well they could hyper inflate currency to do that, but then it would be worthless). It isn't fair to let everyone suffer equally or benefit equally, if someone works hard and prospers they won;t suffer, likewise a lazy person should never prosper.

About the services...
First of all, I'm not forced to do anything. I can kill myself at any time or just choose to watch TV all day.
What is the difference between one company to another? It is that one is richer then the other. One is more expensive then the other. To get that better service, you need to pay more.
As of the situation in a commune, the services are provided by the state. This means that they pay for them. For one, this means they are free. The quality is not so different in them you know. Competition does force one to better their service, but I for one cannot deal with the fake smiles.
And what is the difference with this service? Lets say we are talking about a PS2 or a PS3. PS3 is better of course, but if you never had a PS3 before, PS2 works just as fine. It delivers the same happiness.


The government can force you to do things, it is a requirement in the US to go to school and when the government controls a national bank they can force you to use currency that they may inflate at their will, which devalues it and destroys your savings. And if you watch TV all day, do you really deserve the fruits of another's labor that a communist society would give you.
One company may possess more wealth than another, however, that doesn't mean it will be more expensive, Henry Ford became fabulously rich when he started constructing cheap Tin Lizzies in quantity. The one that is more expensive will naturally get less patronage because of it's additional costs, to keep up with the competition they may need to bend and lower their prices or fail, such free market controls on prices can only benefit the consumer.
The services may be provided by the state, but that doesn't mean they are free, in fact they end up being more costly. You pay for such services through taxes or wealth sharing, because the money must be filtered through several bureaucratic layers the services become more expensive.
They not only better services but better their products, if people start eating at Dominoes more than PizzaHut because it tastes better and is cheaper, PizzaHut will either make the necessary changes or fail. You can't deal with the fake smiles, but would you honestly buy a product from someone who calls you a moron, I think not. By treating customers courteously and professionally you'll get better sales. When buying a guitar you might call one place asking about a guitar featured in an ad's specifics and a teenager says," uhhhh... it has strings..." or another place where you are greeted by a professional who tells you everything about, tone, tuning, construction, and pricing, you are going to buy from the more professional music store.
But that comparison you make only works if you've never played either of them before, in a capitalist world you could easily compare them, in a communist world ou still get less features and it isn't guaranteed that the level of happiness is the same, especially if you've previously lived in a non-communist world. Also your comparison can be likened to comparing play with a toy truck versus a Wii, one will be more fun, however in your comparison the difference is more subtle.

Also, look at the highway system, it is run by the State. What if it were run by a capital? You'd have to pay tolls every 5 minutes and there would probably be advertisements. Companies go for profit. With all that profit they have, you can make a hell of a difference.


If the highways were run by a private enterprise they would be much better. They wouldn't charge tolls every five minutes, that wouldn't be in their enlightened self-interest, another highway could be produced by a different company which charges tolls every one-hundred miles, people would choose the cheaper highway, or they would just go on back roads and pay nothing. What is wrong with advertisements? If they are distracting to drivers, drivers might complain and the owner of the highway would take them down before they lose patronage. Furthermore, the roads would be better, they would be wider to increase traffic, customer satisfaction, and therefore profit. Te would do construction faster to minimize time where profit is lost by less traffic. They would maintain better maintenance it is grossly unprofitable to have a bridge collapse like in Minnesota. Companies seeking profit in an enlightened manner will be better for the consumer.
The companies do make a "hell of a difference," remember that one argument I had before, where my example was with inheriting money and how it would benefit people, same thing here, a large company employs more people, which gives them a constant source of wealth so long as they work. Further, the media pressures companies into being generous, see how Bill Gates and Warren Buffet donate billions to charity, companies do make a difference out of their own selfish need.

Does that seem so easy?
What system? The public education sucks, college you have to pay for.
And before you buy a house you have to rent...
Why make people work to get to a position where they can start living when you can provide them it?


It might not be easy, but almost everyone does it. The system of working up to your desired goals purchasing them and the steps, I detailed is my system; your system is inefficient due to the many bureaucratic layers and the lack of need for efficiency because of a lack of competition. Ok, point conceded, you probably will need to rent (or stay in your parents house), not that that makes any difference.
Because it costs other people's money to provide it to them, it encourages work ethic to work for your goals, it is inefficient to do so, it is aggression to force X to pay for Y's house, it will force X to have the cheapest house available instead of saving up for a more valuable one he wants.

All for money! With the money they make, you can get more then the efficiency competition creates.


The need for money makes the business better to the consumer, which you completely ignore. Also by increasing efficiency you save more money and in such a cycle goods become increasingly cheaper in a capitalist world. This greater benefits both business and consumer because of competition.

And that book notes communists as evil. I feel so sad for those communists who used aggression. What a place they put the rest of us.


Find the quote where it says communists are evil. "We point fingers at the dictators, the Communists, the politicians, and the international cartels. We are blithely unaware that our desire to control selfish others creates and sustains them. Like a stone thrown in a quiet pond, our desire to control our neighbors ripples outward, affecting the political course of our community, state, nation, and world." This says that such labeling and attempted control of others is evil, also she would most likely just disagree with communists, but have no want to control them. Anyways, association does not imply guilt.

She says we should give to others out of love, but when will this happen? It will come out of living in a commune, I tell you. We need to endure a communist society until the trait is born.


Americans give 310 billion dollars a year to charities, and most of that, 230 billion, is from individuals not corporations. Also, if people didn't give donations, why does it seem like there is a voluntary donation funded church on every street corner. Finally, if you were to give a large donation would you give it to the Red Cross or the Department of Health and Human Services? Correct, one inefficiently wastes money.

Why would anyone defend that people are born greedy? You do not seem to want the better of the people, but just to defend capitalism.
Someone who is thought communism is good, will defend it. Same vice-versa...


People aren't born greedy, just selfish, not quite the same. People are born greedy though, they do want the best for themselves. Sorry, but that is just the way it is.
I do want the betterment of the people and believe that a free market helps people more so than communism, remember what I said earlier the mostly capitalist US having both the highest GDP and the least wealth disparity, capitalism generates income for everyone, rich and poor.
Drace
offline
Drace
3,900 posts
Peasant

as you said &quotublic education sucks," the state-operated services which are unified aren't as good as the individually offered services


The Soviet education system I believe was rather great.
And with unification you can produce double. You don't have to worry about the raising of prices in a commune...

However, if you keep the money but the goods are distributed evenly, what good is the money? If you can't survive independently then how did the independent hunter-gatherers survive?


With money you can buy things ^^

f you can't survive independently then how did the independent hunter-gatherers survive?


That was back then Things are much more complex now. The only production was food. One can produce enough food for themselves, but if you want to live more then just on food, you need others. Btw, when prices go tremendously high, many starve.

Ill answer rest later. Good night.
NoNameC68
online
NoNameC68
5,060 posts
Farmer

Drace, you do nto understand the balance of power and its influence on money. You can not have a communist nation were the majority of people is rich or even middle class. Everyone will be poor, maybe not so poor they cant aford to eat but very poor none the less.

Scornic
offline
Scornic
34 posts
Peasant

I assume the creator of this topic has never taken an Economics class. The only reason there are still supporters of Communism is because they don't understand the basic principles of Economics. Years of Economics education not only tells me that Communism can't work, but also why it can't work. One of the first things you learn in Economics, and probably the MOST important thing, is that people face trade-offs.

In order to be equal, we give up efficiency, and in order to be efficient, we give up equity. In a purely Communist society, everyone would have a pretty low standard of living, and in a purely Capitalist society, there would be some people who would be extremely well off, some people who would have extremely low standards of living, (lower than the Communist society), and a lot of middle men. The "average person" would have a much higher standard of living than the Communist.

The main thing the original poster has wrong is saying that people aren't born greedy. Every living creature, (aside from hive-minds like ants or bees) is greedy. Look at a group of feral cats that have found a bit of food. They will fight over the food rather than spread it equally. No one taught them this, and they don't have "money" to make them greedy. It's because of the greed in humans that a Communist society could never exist. At most, a dictator might run a Communist society, where a small elite group are extremely well off, and everyone else is poor.

Honestly, if there was some type of society that was perfect, everyone would use it. Every style has it's problems, so it's really just a matter of whether you want equity or efficiency.

Drace
offline
Drace
3,900 posts
Peasant

Communism doesn't fail on the economic side.

SU was a super power, and China is on its way to becoming one.

Honestly, if there was some type of society that was perfect, everyone would use it.


No one uses will do anything if the idea is not brought up.
Long ago, it was just kings and slaves...now were here, tomorrow we can be all communist.

However, the laborer has no incentive to produce wealth and therefore the state will never have a gagillion dollars because the worker won't produce


*Points to China*
When we say there would be no motivation...
Working hard is surely needed for a steady economy. To get people working hard you need
motivation. Soviet Union(Communism) vs U.S.A(Capitalism). The only motivation capitalism has
is money, get more of it! Make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Many Americans actually struggle to pay their debts and they have no motivation, they just
want to survive with a decent house and a decent car. There are many buisnesses though. All of
them...crap. They eaither are crap or produce crap. Sure its benefitcial to have these
buisnesses since it makes its owner money, it creates jobs which means more $$$ for the U.S.
The Soviet Union had lots of motivation for the people. It thought the people to succeed as
a nation. It was not about you, it was about the nation. People were very interested for the
nation you see, they did work hard. Here in America you have bunch of factories producing
little stupid toys for kids. Its all about getting the money in your pockket, not producing
something useful. Just any product...its useless. Air freshners? I guess thats O.K but...
silly toys such as Barbie? ROFL. Who needs them? No one. Look...Everything you need for life
is already equppied at the start of life. Now...
Heres an American kid and he comes home from school. What does he do? Sits in front of the
T.V watching Yu-Gi-Oh! or Naruto! then he plays xbox 360. Oh but he got bored of his game.
New game mommy! Waste another $40 so I can play!!! People only want these things only
because they exist. Someones life 200 years ago could have been as enjoying as now. Only
thing that has improved life over the years is new forms of government and inventions that
have come from genius minds and scientists. Cars involved slowly, they had no one creator
so these things are exceptions. Lets go back 50 years. Do you think people said "Oh man,
I wish I had a gaming console so I can waste my life on it"? Never...these inventions have
only gave mankind more needs. Capitalism is an evil force. It drives economy crazy but the
society...gaint leap between rich and poor. What freedom does it give that communism
doesn't? To go against the


_______

Labor is needed in any form of government if it is to rise. In a socialist society, the people
produced enough labor to the extent to be called slaves. There is a difference between being
a slave and being like a slave. Slave-like in some cases can be complimentry. No one was a
slave in communist rule. We can't get passed the fact that tt was law to link your life to
your job but why would we? Its beneficial, everyone worked, and everyone recieved their pay
for it. It was financially equal between the people.

I find it amazing that there are so many un-connected arguments that are on the side of
capitalism. So many myths, so little time.

Here we have one which claims that says the people would not be motivated to get ahead, to
create new products. Interest is what gives true motivation. Both nations have around the
same percentage of people who have this interest. Greed is the phony, here Lets not mistake
it for anything else. Buisnesses here are not to create useful products so lives are
improved, it is to make money! Sure, these two cross all the time, since you need to create
"useful" products or else you wont have any customers. At the end of this creation of this
new product, you can easily spot if it was phony greed that was mixed up as the ingrediant.
Truth is, we were equipped with everything we needed to enjoy life on Earth. Look at all the
products we have today, which of them portraits this thought? An Xbox. Ps2, or a Barbie
doll!? All useless products. We have mistaked our wants and labaled them as needs.
Capitalism is the evil mastermind behind this. Socialism gives motivation by a similar
technique to capitalisms. Instead of teaching our young kids to reach for gold chains,
socialism ignores this and teaches them to love their country. My father was an engeeiner
during the Soviet Union and he loved his work. I havn't asked him why it was so, but it does
not matter for now.


The need for money makes the business better to the consumer, which you completely ignore.


What I mean is that with the profit that the capitalist makes, the state can you use that money to do a lot more!

If the highways were run by a private enterprise they would be much better.


How can I highway system be better? The whole point of the highway is for transportation. A capitalist will only make it more attractive so people will use that over another. Thats how it is for all products. At most times, competition makes things seem cooler then another.

We don't really need a highway system to have nice flowers and super clean streets. Its just a lie to make you think its better, but when its really the same feeling when you are actually driving on it.

Average American is said to be as happy as they were 50 years ago.

So since most things only seem attractive, they are not much of use.
Those things that really make a difference come from the people. If people see a fraud or a suggestion in a product, they can suggest a better one. In turn, we get our upgrade.

And attraction could include better performance.

In the toy truck vs a Wii argument, the Wii makes you spoiled.
Drace
offline
Drace
3,900 posts
Peasant

"You get money if you work, just like a dog gets a biscuit for chasing his tail. It gets the dog busy running in circles, while leaving the owner alone. Just for a biscuit. Itâs worthless to you, but the dog would have all the biscuits in the world if he could. So here we are, the governments pets. Just stashing all our biscuits while we continue our âAmerican dreamâ cycle by working until we retire, rot, and die (which they also pay you to do through retirement plans and social security checks). Worst of all, its PAPER. Its like drawing a picture of a biscuit and giving it to your dog! Yet we still want it, we would have all of it in the world if we could. Just like the dog."-Jahmerima

Really were all dogs to the capitals.
Scornic
offline
Scornic
34 posts
Peasant

Communism doesn't fail on the economic side.

I didn't say it fails, just that the "average person" has a much lower standard of living.

SU was a super power, and China is on its way to becoming one.

*Points to China*

China is no longer Communist, buddy.

Greed is the phony, here Lets not mistake
it for anything else. Buisnesses here are not to create useful products so lives are
improved, it is to make money!

A competitive company's main goal is to maximize profit. Often times, you maximize profit by making a product people will actually buy.

We have mistaked our wants and labaled them as needs.
Capitalism is the evil mastermind behind this. Socialism gives motivation by a similar
technique to capitalisms. Instead of teaching our young kids to reach for gold chains,
socialism ignores this and teaches them to love their country.

"Hey you! I know you work really hard to design those complex bridges and roads so we can all get where we need to go, but if you love your country, you will accept the fact that you get the same pleasures as the guy who cleans the bathrooms."
If someone manages to do great things and earn money, how is spending it on luxury goods bad? You basically said you want everyone to have a low standard of living.

What I mean is that with the profit that the capitalist makes, the state can you use that money to do a lot more!

If you had taken any Economics course, you would know that the private companies are FAR more efficient than government programs. Capitalism causes the free market to do what's best for everyone. You should read up on Adam Smith's "invisible hand."

How can I highway system be better? The whole point of the highway is for transportation. A capitalist will only make it more attractive so people will use that over another. Thats how it is for all products. At most times, competition makes things seem cooler then another.

What makes you say this? A capitalist doesn't "just make it pretty." People would figure out real quick that it doesn't work well, and some other firm would produce something that has higher quality. Again, I suggest reading up on the invisible hand.
NoNameC68
online
NoNameC68
5,060 posts
Farmer

Drace, people in communist countries work to survive, they are mostly farmers or they work for oen single rich person who pays them very very little when he makes a fortune.

The people who make a fortune are part of the government or related to the government in some sort of way. That is how communism works, peopl work jsut so they can eat while all the mony goes to the government.

You act like the government will control all the money and anyone who works will gain equal pay AND stay middle class. This is not possible.

Drace, you can't always stand on your position. It is a noble thing "I don't care what anybody says, I will hold my opinion and argue it" but it takes a genious to admit they are wrong. When you are proven wrong, learn from it.

You are one of the few people who do understand that communism is not as "evil" as people make it out to be, but it is a failure none the less.

NoNameC68
online
NoNameC68
5,060 posts
Farmer

Also I shall add, when I say communism fails, I mean that the average person has a crappy life with below standards of living.

Drace
offline
Drace
3,900 posts
Peasant

Lol but NoName,

The people who make a fortune are part of the government or related to the government in some sort of way


Thats just not true :-$

Like I say, communism is only an idea, and ideas can be reformed to fit! Therefore, I can change it around to make it work. Whether its a small thing or a whole transportation and if this transportation leads me to capitalism, so be it.
necromancer
offline
necromancer
750 posts
Shepherd

The Soviet education system I believe was rather great.


I've never heard that before, I heard it was mainly pro-SU propaganda.
And with unification you can produce double.


How? To make a legitimate argument you need evidence.

You don't have to worry about the raising of prices in a commune...


If prices are raised then there is less efficiency or there is artificial inflation (neither of which is done in a capitalist society as consumers are less likely to buy), and if there is less efficiency we are most likely producing less, because it is too expensive to produce. Basic economics.

However, if you keep the money but the goods are distributed evenly, what good is the money?


With money you can buy things ^^


No, you would be unlikely to buy anything with the money, money is worthless paper, the material goods constitute real wealth, you would be more likely to barter. Where the goods are spread evenly, you have more use for goods than paper. In a capitalist society, an individual bank gives you paper that represents gold, trade the paper in for so much gold.

That was back then Things are much more complex now. The only production was food. One can produce enough food for themselves, but if you want to live more then just on food, you need others. Btw, when prices go tremendously high, many starve.


Exactly, and if you want these other goods that are of superior quality and of lower price, you turn to capitalism. Also this will be useful later when you denounce everything capitalism produces. Finally, as a matter of retaining customers why would anyone make prices go up? If you point to the Great Depression, it was caused mostly by government interference in the free-market, high-tariffs create inefficiency in local industries, the national banking lowering money's value, and the only private sector one- buying stocks on margin. Without the fist of the government intervening, everyone would have been better off.

*Points to China*
When we say there would be no motivation...
Working hard is surely needed for a steady economy. To get people working hard you need
motivation. Soviet Union(Communism) vs U.S.A(Capitalism). The only motivation capitalism has
is money, get more of it! Make the rich richer and the poor poorer.


What is China's motivation? Oh, wait, it has a mostly capitalist economy, the government has the ability to intervene, which it does, but it tends to let businesses thrive, it has "Special Economic Zones," where they lower taxes and tariffs to spur economic growth.
The capitalist motivation is not money, but wealth which includes material goods, not just paper. However you fail to identify what communisms motivation is. If it is bettering the state, why would an individual choose this when he can quite clearly and visibly benefit himself? The communist motivation is lesser and deprives individuals of their agency.
As I have said many times, both the rich and the poor are better off in a free market. With job competition, wages are higher, with production competition, products are cheaper and better, with service competition, services are also cheaper and better; the free market benefits the poor.

Many Americans actually struggle to pay their debts and they have no motivation, they just want to survive with a decent house and a decent car.


They have a motivation, be debt-free so they can have a decent house and car.

There are many buisnesses though. All of them...crap. They eaither are crap or produce crap. Sure its benefitcial to have these buisnesses since it makes its owner money, it creates jobs which means more $$$ for the U.S.


If it creates jobs for people, which provides them the ability to live, how is it crap?

The Soviet Union had lots of motivation for the people. It thought the people to succeed as a nation. It was not about you, it was about the nation. People were very interested for the nation you see, they did work hard.


I think the true motivation was the threat of being sent to the Gulags (death/work camps) and being forced to work at gunpoint. Not to mention that Soviet production failed miserably, the Kulaks (peasant farmers) refused to grow grain because te government took it away from htem, resulting in several famines, the flaw in your theory is that everyone must be nationalistic if you want production. Second, strong nationalism leads to war, when people are willing to do anything for their country the leaders in power are much more likely to make war. Look at World War One, there was a surge in nationalism around that time, if citizens weren't strongly patriotic, the leaders in charge, might be ousted in the next election, or people would no longer follow future laws of their's.

Here in America you have bunch of factories producing
little stupid toys for kids. Its all about getting the money in your pockket, not producing something useful. Just any product...its useless. Air freshners? I guess thats O.K but... silly toys such as Barbie? ROFL. Who needs them? No one. Look...Everything you need for life is already equppied at the start of life. Now... Heres an American kid and he comes home from school. What does he do? Sits in front of the T.V watching Yu-Gi-Oh! or Naruto! then he plays xbox 360. Oh but he got bored of his game. New game mommy! Waste another $40 so I can play!!! People only want these things only because they exist.


They produce most of that in China and Japan... Not just your pocket though, the pockets of the workers who need wealth to live. Also, that isn't capitalism fostering this, it is bad parenting, which is just as likely to happen in a communist world; my parents, for example made me save up to buy most of my toys, and I only got a little for Christmas/birthday, by encouraging a better work ethic through chores to buy toys, you gain more than if a communist just says there are no toys anymore. Also, you are only attacking a specific industry, capitalism fosters a need for what is better, stronger, faster, etc. If the world were communist, it is doubtful we would have the technology we do. We wouldn't have the same innovations that we have. The government would be unwilling to sponsor innovation, as it prefers to produce all of the same products to allow equality.

Someones life 200 years ago could have been as enjoying as now. Only thing that has improved life over the years is new forms of government and inventions that have come from genius minds and scientists. Cars involved slowly, they had no one creator so these things are exceptions.


Most things evolved slowly; people experimented with electricity in the form of lightning, Volta created the battery, making it possible for Edison discovered the carbon-filament light bulb. However, Volta's battery was composed of metals like zinc and nickel between brine soaked cloth, look how far we have come since then, alkaline batteries, the nickel-cadmium batteries, and now lithium batteries. In an effort to out compete their neighbors for more consumers better and better products are created, they are not made in a single technological leap. Same thing for light bulbs, carbon/steel filaments, increased resistance and therefore more light, stronger vacuums increasing durability, flourescent lighting, halogen lighting, variable brightness etc. Also bureaucracies are unwilling to accept change and would not likely accept new ideas, they have no incentive to, instead they would have to create new production centers, which without competition, they wouldn't want to do.
Life 200 years ago was definitely not better, you were most likely going to be dead by the age of forty, sanitation systems were non-existent, the majority of the people were poorer (in fact, you could say everyone had less wealth, remember my iron ore example when I was first explaining wealth, well instead of being able to make it into a car, they made it into a hammer a nail, or a horseshoe; all of which are far less valuable). Lives back then were less enjoyable, there was less wealth to distribute, people had shorter life expectancies and people had no modern comforts.

Lets go back 50 years. Do you think people said "Oh man, I wish I had a gaming console so I can waste my life on it"? Never...these inventions have only gave mankind more needs. Capitalism is an evil force. It drives economy crazy but the society...gaint leap between rich and poor. What freedom does it give that communism doesn't?


Have you ever heard someone say "Oh man, I wish I had a gaming console so I can waste my life on it?" Doubtful, regardless,50 years ago you would see people finding plenty of other ways to waste their life, go back 2,000 years, you can still find hedonists, however, pro-capitalists, realize that even if someone foolishly chooses this, it is still his choice and we will respect his autonomy and allow him to do so. Capitalism drives the economy forward, not crazy. Capitalism obviously gives you the freedom to manage your finances and career choices as you want, it also preserves a persons autonomy in other matters, a communist government must censor anyone who speaks against it, and often prevents people from doing "immoral" things like watching porn, when pro-capitalists believe they should be free to do and believe what they want.

Labor is needed in any form of government if it is to rise. In a socialist society, the people produced enough labor to the extent to be called slaves. There is a difference between being a slave and being like a slave. Slave-like in some cases can be complimentry. No one was a slave in communist rule. We can't get passed the fact that tt was law to link your life to your job but why would we? Its beneficial, everyone worked, and everyone recieved their pay for it. It was financially equal between the people.


'Cuz, you know, being forced to work at gunpoint in a gulag isn't slavery. Of course...

I find it amazing that there are so many un-connected arguments that are on the side of capitalism. So many myths, so little time.


Yours are the arguments that are inconsistent, you would be better off arguing anarcho-communism in my opinion, it is more consistent. Oh well...

Here we have one which claims that says the people would not be motivated to get ahead, to create new products. Interest is what gives true motivation. Both nations have around the same percentage of people who have this interest. Greed is the phony, here Lets not mistake it for anything else. Buisnesses here are not to create useful products so lives are improved, it is to make money! Sure, these two cross all the time, since you need to create "useful" products or else you wont have any customers.


One, that isn't a myth. Two, your last, although sarcastic, sentence says it all, better cheaper products get you customers, because better and cheaper products benefit the customers. It is a win-win situation, the business profits and the customer has a useful product. Communists force out products and mandate that you give them away for the good of the state. This is lose-lose, the producer gets nothing, the consumer gets an inferior product because the producer had no incentive to create something better.

At the end of this creation of this new product, you can easily spot if it was phony greed that was mixed up as the ingrediant. Truth is, we were equipped with everything we needed to enjoy life on Earth. Look at all the products we have today, which of them portraits this thought? An Xbox. Ps2, or a Barbie doll!? All useless products. We have mistaked our wants and labaled them as needs.


The selfish ingredient makes the product better though. No problem there. You are back to an earlier argument, promoting stone-age living because it is supposedly happier, yet, it truly has no merits.

Capitalism is the evil mastermind behind this. Socialism gives motivation by a similar technique to capitalisms. Instead of teaching our young kids to reach for gold chains, socialism ignores this and teaches them to love their country. My father was an engeeiner during the Soviet Union and he loved his work. I havn't asked him why it was so, but it does not matter for now.


Capitalism is the evil mastermind behind increasing the wealth of the people, their happiness, their longevity... It really is evil then... I could nly ever love a country that allowed me the freedom to do what I want, therefore I would refuse to work in a communist government, so much for increased labor output.

What I mean is that with the profit that the capitalist makes, the state can you use that money to do a lot more!


But a private individual can do so much more, I asked you earlier would you rather donate to the Red Cross or the Department of Health and Human services. The Red Cross can do much more for the needy.

How can I highway system be better? The whole point of the highway is for transportation. A capitalist will only make it more attractive so people will use that over another. Thats how it is for all products. At most times, competition makes things seem cooler then another.

We don't really need a highway system to have nice flowers and super clean streets. Its just a lie to make you think its better, but when its really the same feeling when you are actually driving on it.


Did you read anything I wrote? The highways would be wider, have quicker repairs, and be better maintained ;it would be of minimal use to add flowers to the side of the road when you can make the highway wider, which increases traffic, which increases the number of tolls collected and the amount advertisers pay. Same thing for quicker construction.

Average American is said to be as happy as they were 50 years ago.


Needs a citation, and an American's quality of life has increased in many ways regardless.

So since most things only seem attractive, they are not much of use.Those things that really make a difference come from the people. If people see a fraud or a suggestion in a product, they can suggest a better one. In turn, we get our upgrade.


I repeat, being non-competitive the government has no reason to change the product, they could silence it's creator and no one would ever know the difference. You should read Anthem.

And attraction could include better performance.


Thank you, capitalism creates things of better performance.

In the toy truck vs a Wii argument, the Wii makes you spoiled.


Not if you paid for it yourself, like me, besides, you avoided the question.
Drace
offline
Drace
3,900 posts
Peasant

I see communism in the most basic sense that the production exceeds a lot more then enough to keep the population happy.

Instead of making a profit off the production, give it to the state to make it for the better.

Surely we cab come up with another system as an alternative to communism?

Like I said earlier.

I have seen and understood today's societies struggles and mistakes. Communism is my way of fixing it.

If its not communism that can do this, then I shall find another way. Until I live to infinity years and establish that capitalism is the best we can get, then I will stop showing hatred to it.

My chances are well.
Drace
offline
Drace
3,900 posts
Peasant

In theory this could be the case, but in reality I think you only need to look at the world and ask yourself does free market provide what is best for people? If anything the quality will go down as companies try to compete with each other for better profits by resorting to desparate measures (using poor quality materials, lowering wages etc..) which will ultimately affect to workers moral and alienate them from their labour so they will not be very inclined to do the best job they can (have seen this in real life many times).

Also, if a company is so much better than its competition (quality and cheap), eveyone will most likely just use that product and their wouldnt really be a 'free' market as any competition wouldnt stand a chance. From my experience, this hits the workers worst as there is less jobs and the 'winner' company is in a position to do what they like as far as workers rights and wages (Tescos anyone?). It sounds all great and 'free' but you must always consider that things under capitalism are always made for profit first, if it happens to be a good service than thats a bonus (and very rarelly the case). Thats my take on it so far (hopeing someone who is a bit better versed in marxist economics will also answer for you)
+ nowadays people often mistake what is the best produce/service for the best presented one (Good advertisment). Obviously good presentation doesnt often equall a good produce, but most people tend to go with a better presented regardless of quality.
..Also what evidence is their to prove that private services are FAR better than public ones?


Not mine ^^
Drace
offline
Drace
3,900 posts
Peasant

Americans need to stop looking to the government to bail them out when they make a bad investment.


They practically lost their lives. I think at this point even if you pleaded for a penny its ok...
Agent_86
offline
Agent_86
2,142 posts
Peasant

The only problem with the US form of capitalism it that it isn't true capitalism. The federal, state, and local governments all want their piece of the pie, and when the market dips, they want to bail it out. The truth is, if the government left the market alone, the problems would work themselves out. Capitalism involves risk, and that means some people will profit, and others will come out with a loss. Americans need to stop looking to the government to bail them out when they make a bad investment.

Showing 46-60 of 126