The Communists are invading!

[03USMC]

No spike not everyone who sees problems with capitalism is a commie red bastard, some are socialist bastards aspiring to commie bastard status and some are social centerists.

Thing is communism is a dead political experiment except in some third world banana republics ruled by tin horned wanna be despots. Hell China is communist in name only.

DOes capitalism have problems? Yes. But also tends to raise Standard of living for most involved. communism..yeah not so much.

 

[mr Joker]

No spike not everyone who sees problems with capitalism is a commie red bastard, some are socialist bastards aspiring to commie bastard status and some are social centerists.

Thing is communism is a dead political experiment except in some third world banana republics ruled by tin horned wanna be despots. Hell China is communist in name only.

DOes capitalism have problems? Yes. But also tends to raise Standard of living for most involved. communism..yeah not so much.

The thing is that there are various types of capitalism (some are called mixed economy , i reject the term. I consider all economies other than communist ones as mixed economies which is my definition of capitalism) while there is only one type of Communism.

People often forget this in discussions like that.

Being in favor of social health-care isn't at all less capitalist than being against it. (one example).

 

[Zastava-Arms]

.
Capitalism isn't without its flaws and it does have a pretty big ugly side. That's why regulating it is important. Just what about it is so hard to understand?

Just replace the 'Capitalism' at the beginning with 'Communism'.

Communism DOES work, you just need to regulate it properly, and it DOES have a pretty ugly side [Thanks to DPRK, USSR and PRC]. So, just what about it is so hard to understand?

 

[mr Joker]

Just replace the 'Capitalism' at the beginning with 'Communism'.

Communism DOES work, you just need to regulate it properly, and it DOES have a pretty ugly side [Thanks to DPRK, USSR and PRC]. So, just what about it is so hard to understand?

There is one difference. I think the man meant the free markets need regulation. That regulation is a part of capitalism , and not something outside it , that if it was added to capitalism , capitalism would work.

Hense Capitalism works because it is based on free markets that are however regulated by a state to some extend. Communism is complete lack of private investment. A huge monopoly of a state bureaucracy if you will controlling all economic activities. A pretty stupid theory. That was based on an utopia. Sucks both in theory and practice.

Though one may claim that without communism capitalism would be a worse system. That is something that could well be true and communism helped create the good system that is today's capitalism. (with all it's problems).

 

[captiva303]

Just replace the 'Capitalism' at the beginning with 'Communism'.

Communism DOES work, you just need to regulate it properly, and it DOES have a pretty ugly side [Thanks to DPRK, USSR and PRC]. So, just what about it is so hard to understand

because communism is to easy to exploit and corrupt...
reason it isn't that easy in capitalism is that the government doesn't own everything so it has to be accountable to people in order for them to operate (not to mention that a capitalist society is generally accompanied by free and fair elections)...

 

[mr Joker]

because communism is to easy to exploit and corrupt...
reason it isn't that easy in capitalism is that the government doesn't own everything so it has to be accountable to people in order for them to operate (not to mention that a capitalist society is generally accompanied by free and fair elections)...

Hell , Even if a communist government was not corrupt and simply wanted the best for their state and people their economy would still be in a far worse shape than if the same one was a capitalistic one.

 

[A Can of Man]

Mr Joker got it right.
China back in the 60's under Mao was led with all the best intentions yet failed miserably. The Great Leap Forward was a program designed with the best of intentions but turned out to be one of the greatest failures, possibly of all time.
And yes, regulation is a part of Capitalism. You have to regulate the free market. That is exactly what I mean.

 

[The Other Guy]

Just replace the 'Capitalism' at the beginning with 'Communism'.

Communism DOES work, you just need to regulate it properly, and it DOES have a pretty ugly side [Thanks to DPRK, USSR and PRC]. So, just what about it is so hard to understand?

Communism does not work, because there is no motivation to succeed. That's why collective farms, despite being much larger than small farms, produced a fraction of the crops.

I have nothing against regulated Capitalism, but flat-out communism will not succeed.

 

[Ted]

Can we agree that the communism performed by mankind has failed, due to many reasons? Can we also agree that capitalism in it's purest form has failed? On paper both philosophies look fine and dandy, but once the human factor comes in the equation things go wrong.
Yes capitalism has brought much wealth in the world. And yes, ask many former communists what they miss and it would be the social cohesion. Many form East Germans still miss it after twenty years. So communism robs you of your personal freedom and capitalism robs you of your personal identity. What is worse?

 

[The Other Guy]

Can we agree that the communism performed by mankind has failed, due to many reasons? Can we also agree that capitalism in it's purest form has failed?

Yes, we can. We gave the guys a shot to be smart and run it themselves, and they failed at that task. Time to bring in the government.

 

[A Can of Man]

The failures brought about by poorly regulated or unregulated Capitalism still pale in comparison to the failures of Communism. Still, failure is failure, so regulation is definitely in.
Capitalism doesn't rob you of your individuality. Communism does that even better. If you don't agree, you are probably blind. In a Capitalistic society (one that is regulated for the sake of the damned argument), in the weekend or your own time you can do whatever you want. Build a boat, build a plane, play xbox, tend a garden of your own... in Communism no such activity is officially permitted. The materials going into the boat or the plane will be considered a waste and your garden, a sign of selfishness.
Last week I finished making a desk for my kids and currently I'm making a bigger bird cage for my parakeets. So much for consumerism right? I went to the store, I wasn't satisfied so I got some wood, nails, sanding paper and for the bird house, some screen. Already got the tools so I just build my own and they're exactly like the way I want them. I can choose to buy, or if none satisfy me, I can choose to invest a little time and build.

 

[perseus]

Can we agree that the communism performed by mankind has failed, due to many reasons? Can we also agree that capitalism in it's purest form has failed? On paper both philosophies look fine and dandy, but once the human factor comes in the equation things go wrong.
Yes capitalism has brought much wealth in the world. And yes, ask many former communists what they miss and it would be the social cohesion. Many form East Germans still miss it after twenty years. So communism robs you of your personal freedom and capitalism robs you of your personal identity. What is worse?

Yes, I would generally agree with this, although I would say that capitalism has been good at acquiring materialistic wealth. I have to say though, the word communist is a political ideology, the opposite of capitalism is really socialism the latter of which is far MORE democratic because of greater independence from the big corporations and participation of the Unions. Most people don't realise this and get conned through the right to vote.

 

[A Can of Man]

Humor me guys, humor me. You guys act like money just falls from the sky with the seasonal monsoon.

 

[perseus]

It does in some jobs, it's called the annual bonus! Don't forget that materials cost nothing, everything you pay for in a product, is the cost of labour at some point down the line! However it seem to me that the cost of marketing and managing a product is far more than the cost of actually extracting, refining, machining. Why?

Do the 'white collar' brigade really do anything essential for society, and how much are the costs artificially inflated because we live in a society were we need more money to pay the parasites. I'm not JUST talking about the social security dependants, but the myriad of financial and 'middle man' jobs which seem to spring up: bankers, estate agents, stockbrokers, shareholders, management consultants... oh now you have got me going.

Do you know how much people are paid in the sweat shops for the products you buy?

In 2003, Honduran garment factory workers were paid US$0.24 for each $50 Sean John sweatshirt, $0.15 for each long-sleeved t-shirt, and only five cents for each short-sleeved shirt – less than one-half of one percent of the retail price.

"Sean John Setisa Report". National Labor Committee. October 2003. http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=103. Retrieved 2007-05-31.

Now who and what is cashing the difference?

Try reading 'No Logo' by Naomi Klein.

Socialism is about giving these people (or people like them, in our countries as well) a fair wage for their labour, not trying to oppress them or ourselves, can you not try to understand that?

 

[mr Joker]

Perseus , your understanding of how economy works is more limited than one can imagine.

 

[mr Joker]

And i am sure that the relationship between the Communist party of China and any nation that someone like you would be in charge , would seriously suffer .

 

[mr Joker]

Without Lending - without money changing hands - no economy can prosper. And investments simply do not happen.

Without shareholders investing in stocks and a stock exchange , companies can not easilly know the true value of their company. It also helps multinational Companies , who have different worth at different currencies. Oh well my lack of English fluency may cause me not to explain this properly.

Do you know how much people are paid in the sweat shops for the products you buy.

Where slavery is not concerned , the fact that people buy those products probably has a positive effect for the local economy and those people who work there in those "sweat shops" .

While their economy expands they would also start to consume like we consume their products. And their living standards would improve also.

Nevertheless , the transition period is a period is a period where many mistakes may happen.

Socialism is about giving these people (or people like them, in our countries as well) a fair wage for their labour, not trying to oppress them or ourselves, can you not try to understand that?

I disagree. This happens in capitalism. Socialism is not about giving those people a fair wage but giving them an unfair one. And i mean less money than in a non socialist system.

 

[captiva303]

mate, i think there is a rule against double posting...
so in future just edit previous posts until they are full or wait itll someones else posts...
but other than good points you got there!

 

[A Can of Man]

Yeah, good points Joker. But please do not double post. If you have to add stuff to what you wrote, juts hit the edit button and type below it.
As for what Perseus said... not even worth a reply.

 

[perseus]

You need to check your own knowledge Joker

Without shareholders investing in stocks and a stock exchange , companies can not easilly know the true value of their company.

What possible use can this value measure be? Was the TRUE value of tech stocks in 1999 really an order of magnitude more than what is was a year later? Was Enron, or the major banks share price represent their true value a month before their collapse? you are surely talking serious rubbish. Share prices reflect speculation, ignorance and psychology more than value.

The purposes of the stockmarket is not to measure value, but to raise capital for companies who wish to expand without having to borrow. However, the 'price' of taking this equity raising route includes

a) the need to pay dividends to shareholders, which represents a drain on investment and less pay for the workers.

b) giving amateurs ownership of the company, who might have little knowledge or interest in the business but merely see it as a means to increase their own short term prosperity.

Surely there are better ways than allowing children to run a chocolate factory.

I disagree. This happens in capitalism. Socialism is not about giving those people a fair wage but giving them an unfair one. And i mean less money than in a non socialist system.

Capitalism is about making money for owners and shareholders, not employees. Employees are just human resources to be paid as little as the market allows to avoid them moving elsewhere. Even this pay theoretically equates their use to the business not society as a whole. Society can go to hell as the tobacco producers know. Monopolies, union restrictions and social inertia can also play a big factor in keeping pay artificially low. However, this pay can either be extortionate (dealers bonuses) or a pittance (sweatshops) but rarely fair in any meaningful sense.

Would you be happy to earn less than one-half of one percent of the products retail price? Try it you will soon change your mind