Do you think Communism could benefit a country? Personally, I am in favour of it, because I like the idea of an equal distribution of wealth and a proper welfare system for the people.
I also am not in favour of the Capitalist idea of the rich benefitting simply because they have more money, and the labourers working hard yet still being paid badly, or the unemployed who are deprived jobs because the capitalist entrepreneurs find it more profitable to use machines.
Not to mention that Capitalism has nothing to do with slavery and that slavery was just an disappointing side effect of the slave trade. Capitalism does not thrive on slavery, so don't pretend that it does.
Slaves were a cheap source of labor, this goes hand in hand with the profit motive.
Furthermore, communism thrived off of war. If Russia wasn't involved in the Cold war, it would have died much quicker. Russia THRIVED off the war, not suffered. Russia thrived off the cold war the same way America thrived off World War II, which helped bring America out of the Great Depression.
The Soviet Union lost 20-25 million of its civilians, had many of its cities bombed to nothing, stopped production for 5 years and used much of its resources. The compensation which was to given by Germany was stolen by the West.
I don't see how this is comparable to how the US thrived off the war.
Slaves were a cheap source of labor, this goes hand in hand with the profit motive.
Alright, that still has nothing to do with Capitalism. Even with Communism, the government would still be trying to make a profit to support the people. Wanting to make a profit is not a bad thing, just how you make the profit. Right now, slavery doesn't exist. Yet, there is still Capitalism. Therefore, Capitalism does not rely on slavery.
The Soviet Union lost 20-25 million of its civilians, had many of its cities bombed to nothing, stopped production for 5 years and used much of its resources. The compensation which was to given by Germany was stolen by the West.
They were given motivation to rebuild. When people are focused on war, they work together to fight a common enemy. When there is peace, people figure out a way to get ahead of everyone else. This causes competition. In a state of peace, a country can often thrive, and just as easily a country can fall into a hole.
They were given motivation to rebuild. When people are focused on war, they work together to fight a common enemy. When there is peace, people figure out a way to get ahead of everyone else. This causes competition. In a state of peace, a country can often thrive, and just as easily a country can fall into a hole.
Rebuilding from complete destruction is not very progressive. The rest I found to be idealistic with no relevance to reality nor history.
Peace causes competition? If you want to argue that the Soviet Union was doomed to fail because of competition between individuals, do so, but stating that the war was a positive break from this is ridiculous.
Also, this "motivation" would also go away as soon as what was destroyed was rebuilt. So it fails to do anything more than return things to the pre-war levels.
Right now, slavery doesn't exist. Yet, there is still Capitalism. Therefore, Capitalism does not rely on slavery.
Slavery exists, in my country and other developing countries with crushing poverty. Its just that they are paid, and paid so little that they can barely afford food. They are also children. Capitalism, is based off the profit motive, and supply and demand. Children offer cheap labour, thus greater profit. This increases the demand for child labour, and thus increases the supply of child labour, as it is a profitable commodity. I don't see how this is not capitalism. Capitalists produce what is most profitable, and I assure you that were it not for the law, there would be slave markets in our cities.
Slavery exists, in my country and other developing countries with crushing poverty. Its just that they are paid, and paid so little that they can barely afford food. They are also children. Capitalism, is based off the profit motive, and supply and demand. Children offer cheap labour, thus greater profit. This increases the demand for child labour, and thus increases the supply of child labour, as it is a profitable commodity. I don't see how this is not capitalism. Capitalists produce what is most profitable, and I assure you that were it not for the law, there would be slave markets in our cities.
That logic is fucked up and you know it. "Capitalism is about making a profit, child labor is about making a profit, they must be interlinked with each other! Har har, I am smart."
Men will often find a bunch of women and buy them nice clothes. They will protect the women. In return, those women sleep with other men. Prostitution is about making a profit. Does that mean Capitalism causes prostitution? Hell no. Prostitution exists EVERYWHERE.
A capitalist nation buy's cheap goods from a foreign country. These goods were created by children. Does that make Capitalism solely responsible for Child Labor? If there were any communist countries left in the world, chances are they would buy these same goods. Would this make those communist countries responsible for Child Labor? OH WAIT, there are communist countries that still exist! OH MY GOD! Those are the same countries that have high child labor rates!
I would disagree with America buying goods from countries that support child labor, but at least America doesn't incorporate child labor to make products.
Just because America, a capitalist nation, is associated with child labor and at one time slavery, does not mean that capitalism causes those things or that communism supports those things. The current communist countries have no problems with child labor, and America doesn't support slavery (it may have at one point in time, but so has almost every other country).
America is Capitalist. America at one time owned slaves. You have to be foolish to say that Capitalism goes hand in hand with slavery. Capitalism got involved with slavery, but today, it doesn't go hand in hand with slavery. But if you want to play that game...
Between 1930 and 1960, the Soviet regime created many Lager labor camps in Siberia and Central Asia.[73][74] There were at least 476 separate camp complexes, each one comprising hundreds, even thousands of individual camps.[75] It is estimated that there may have been 5-7 million people in these camps at any one time. In later years the camps also held victims of Stalinâs purges as well as World War II prisoners. It is possible that approximately 10% of prisoners died each year.[76] Out of the 91,000 Germans captured alive after the Battle of Stalingrad, only 6,000 survived the Gulag and returned home.[77] Many of these prisoners, however, had died of illness contracted during the siege of Stalingrad and in the forced march into captivity.[78]
There's proof that communism thrived off slavery too.
Does communism go hand in hand with slavery? No. Child labor, not necessarily. So let's at least remain realistic with these accusations.
It doesn't matter if the nation was Socialist, Capitalist, or a Mixed economy, we all know darn well that, were it not for the laws to keep it in place, leaders would find ways to try and make more profits, whether it'd be slavery, child labor, or ethic wages (which occurs in the USA, hypocrites). The first lightbulb that popped into corporate leaders is, "hey, what if we could pay our employees less? Or, not at all? How would we manage that?"
It occurs with both sides of the coin. We just have laws to keep proper employment in check.
Capitalists do not use slavery. The capitalist try to use modern things, such as short-term contracts and loaning workers (I don't know the exact English term). Slavery is far more common in agricultural enterprises and countries. There is no doubt that the uncertainty of short-term contracts can be (and is) very often extremely bad, but calling it slavery is an exaggeration.
there are communist countries that still exist!
I disagree here. These communist countries say that are communist but are not. Theory and practice are very different.
Communism attempts to offer an alternative way to solve the problems with the capitalist market economy and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism.That doesn't mean that communism equals to success.Communism abolish the bourgeoisie and the other classes to make one class so there are no racial or other divisions.I personally,don't really agree with that all.Cause as previous mentioned a man that works at an office for 8 hours can't be paid as a worker on a structure that works for 8 hours too.There are many other examples like this.
Cause as previous mentioned a man that works at an office for 8 hours can't be paid as a worker on a structure that works for 8 hours too.There are many other examples like this.
Its quite simple, the more needed and harder your job is, the more you get paid.
Drace, your a closed minded debater. You can't debate with a closed mind, or else you will never listen to the others veiws, only insist that theres are wrong, and yours are right, with no thought as to what there saying.
Wage slavery is the notion that everyone is forced to accept the capitalist way of production and sell their labor power in order to sustain their living.
Its quite simple, the more needed and harder your job is, the more you get paid.
Capitalists have the tendency to pay the lowest wages possible. Its rather that people are paid according to how abundant the availability of labor power is, also with the effect of the minimum wage. Lawyers are harder to come by so the capitalists have to pay them more for their labor. Though, if everyone was a lawyer, then their labor would not be worth as much.
This is why, in places like Haiti, Indonesia, India, China, etc, Western companies hire people to work for up to 16 hours a day, with minimum bathroom breaks, and suppression for $0.30 an hour. It is not simple as "the harder you work, the more you get paid"
The capitalist class also relatively does very little work in comparison to their profits.
Drace, your a closed minded debater. You can't debate with a closed mind, or else you will never listen to the others veiws, only insist that theres are wrong, and yours are right, with no thought as to what there saying.
For the record, if you look at what people such as Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Trotsky, Che Guevara, Mao, or any genuinely (in) famous "communist" leader, they all claim the worker's/peasants will be in charge at some point in their history future and the only way to realize prediction is through a revolution and destruction of all pre-existing parts of bourgeois society. Can you say for certain that nations trying to win independence from imperialism who call themselves Marxist-Leninist are really trying to win an international utopia for the general good of humanity? Castro didn't even say he was a communist in his early rise to power in the revolution for Cuba (well, his comrade Che Guevara always did anyway). Ho Chi Mihn, I'm almost positive, was in it for power and control over Vietnam. His government controlled everything and he had over 80% if the population backing him. When Mao first came to power one of the first things he said was "China has arisen" not "The oppressed workers from developed capitalist economies by the bourgeoisie have arisen in an underdeveloped nation in Asia thanks to me and the angry peasants."
