Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Montague]

Communism doesn't work? Look at China.
I forgot to mention, communism is a government, capitalism is an economic idea which is the opposite of what communism dictates.
A pure communistic country like the soviet union fails, and a country under pure democratic values and capitalism has fallouts, which are devastating and last a long time.
China is a mix of communism and democratic values, and exercises a small amount of capitalism, in which people can own businesses. It being a communist government, makes it able to withstand and fix economic problems easier.
But it limits peoples freedoms and people don't like that.
So either way, but are bad. One you lose most of your freedoms, and the entire country is failing. The other you have freedom, but the economy breaks alot.
The either is in the middle. You lose a few rights, but the economy is stable, and you can own a business. However, government can do what they want most of the time.
Speaking of that, I gotta find a place that has the Communist Manifesto so I can read a little bit more about this.

China works? Sure, I guess if you ignore human rights abuses, alienation of minorities, wholesale destruction of the environment, repression of freedom of speech and a thousand other outrages, for the sake of a decent annual GNP growth, then sure. I'd say your priorities are about right for a communist.

[Criptfeind]

Look at China.

Oh? You mean the place that was until recently regarded as a terrible place to live and a third world country that only know is becoming a economic power house as they add in Capitalist reforms to their economy.

Of course socially is it is socialist, and we all know how good their social policies are.

I forgot to mention, communism is a government, capitalism is an economic idea which is the opposite of what communism dictates.

But you can not really split them apart as far as government/economy goes. Communism really is a merger of economic and governmental theory. Even capitalism has fingers in the governmental theory.

A pure communistic country like the soviet union fails

Actually, as I am sure a lolcommie would be glad to point out, the USSR was not a communist country. They were just trying to become a communist country. Like all country that have tried so far they failed.

The other you have freedom, but the economy breaks alot.

I dunno. The economy has not truly broken for a long time. We go though these waves all the time, and honestly they are nothing to be overly worried about so long as they do not devolve into a depression.

The either is in the middle. You lose a few rights, but the economy is stable, and you can own a business. However, government can do what they want most of the time.

Your described middle ground seem to lose quite a lot of rights, more then a few at last. Also, China is hardly the middle ground... That would be more like Sweden.

Not to mention that it's growth is almost certainly not going to last. They are just getting their industrial boom, which is only noticeable because of the shear size of the nation. I would be very surprised if at some point, maybe in 20 years, maybe in 50, they do not crash.

[Little]

I forgot to mention, communism is a government, capitalism is an economic idea which is the opposite of what communism dictates.

Communism is also an economic ideal, based around the idea worker ownership of the modes of production? Course, it's never achieved, but neither is capitalism's idea of a real free market and fair competition, so I guess they balance out in shit.

[PsyberianHusky]

Quite frankly I do not believe cooperation's as entities should be allowed to exist in their current shape. If Capitalism had some way of removing the positions that exist only to hold capitol I believe it would be a better system.


I also realize this is a bad idea.

Capitalism has a necessary evil of needing social status to gain status, where as communism in theory provides status.

[Alastar]

Communism seems more practical than ever with the advances in computing and communications technology, but it still isn't self-regulating. It requires a high degree of professionalism and integrity of the decision-makers, and competent administration on every level. Ideology is always going to be tricky: you need enough conformity for people to think big, but not enough to stifle innovation. You have to balance what people want with what you think they need. You need to be acutely aware of current perceived scarcities and opportunities for the future. You need to set up a decent set of incentives for undertakings that aren't prestigious or technically sweet.

Capitalism has the advantage that you don't need to actively get a complex system right. You have a natural framework of incentives that should allocate resources beneficially, you only have to interfere when unwholesome trends emerge that interfere with a market's ability to regulate itself. The problem is that this is often done in a heavy-handed or seemlingly clueless way because what's politically expedient trumps what's economically sound.
The beauty is that for the most part, it can work out well even if the majority of people (including the decision-makers if you have a few sane safeguards) are self-centered jerks.

*

Every economy has aspects of both, for good reason: there are things markets can provide better and things that work better when centrally planned. The challenge is to mix concepts in a way that gets the best out of both worlds rather than the worst. For example, fixed prices and competing suppliers often leads to shoddy goods - there's no incentive to be better and competition lies in how many corners can be cut to lower costs. The same problem plagued consumer products in most nominally communist countries, and some restricted markets in nominally capitalist ones.

Now if someone could set up a stripped-down planned economy for the very basics that exists just to make sure that no private enterprise has their customers over a barrel, without becoming larger and clumsier by the year to play silly little political games...
well, one can dream.

[Montague]

Mixed systems work, if more on the free-market side then anything.

Generally, any type of government meddling in economics has a deleterious effect on the living standards of the people living under it. The less market regulation, the more wealthy the people. The rich get richer and the poor get richer too.

Look at Hong Kong and Singapore. They because wealthy places simply because their original colonial masters left them the hell alone. Contrast that with any state that attempts to modify people's behavior, meddles in economic policy and tries to equalize incomes. Economic freedom is inextricably linked with personal freedom. You take responsibly away from individuals and place it within a government bureaucracy. Which is why every state with a collectivist economic policy steers toward dictatorship.

[G-Flex]

Mixed systems work, if more on the free-market side then anything.

Generally, any type of government meddling in economics has a deleterious effect on the living standards of the people living under it. The less market regulation, the more wealthy the people. The rich get richer and the poor get richer too.

Er... you're espousing laissez-faire capitalism. That's very far from a "mixed system". I guess you aren't a fan of clean water regulation, or a highway system, or not having lead in your cereal accidentally, though.

Look at Hong Kong and Singapore. They because wealthy places simply because their original colonial masters left them the hell alone. Contrast that with any state that attempts to modify people's behavior, meddles in economic policy and tries to equalize incomes. Economic freedom is inextricably linked with personal freedom. You take responsibly away from individuals and place it within a government bureaucracy. Which is why every state with a collectivist economic policy steers toward dictatorship.

Any state that isn't laissez-faire "steers toward dictatorship". Got it. I think my eyes just rolled so far back in my head that they did that thing from Beetlejuice and popped back out onto my tongue.



Both pure command economies and pure "free market" economies rely on assumptions that aren't true in either case. A completely "free market" only works under the assumption that people are completely in control of themselves, can be reasonably well-informed and rational actors in all cases, that people act in rational self-interest while also avoiding harm to others, that competition is abundant and upward/downward mobility is easy, and a bunch of other things that simply aren't true in the real world. A command economy, on the other hand, assumes that the government knows what is absolutely best for everyone at all times and can efficiently ascertain this and act upon it, which is also obviously untrue. That's why pretty much any working system in the world is mixed. People need economic freedom, but they also need economic protections. A free market isn't necessarily very free at all.

[Montague]

I talking in generalities and railing against collectivist economics, I don't advocate pure capitalism because its about as realistic as communism. Ideas like having all roads and schools and military bases be somebody's private property make my head spin.

A pure laissez-faire society hasn't ever really been tried in a developed country. Historically, there has been like in the New World where it revolved around agricultural. Bring things like complex economies and stock markets then ultra-free markets would probably have disastrous results. The ones that have come close, like Chile and Hong-Kong have had severe boom-bust cycles and destabilization of the market in general, among other things.

Mixed economies can be all over the scale, so to speak, but there is a strong correlation between increased economic freedom and increased personal freedom and wealth, growth, prosperity.

Anyways, free market countries are not selling people lead painted children's toys and poisonous dog food and poisoning their environment as much as possible, more like Communist China's policy.

[scriver]

I think you need to read up on the horrors of the 19th and early 20th century, Montague, as you seem to have no idea what the consequences of unrestrained capitalism really are. The only reason they stopped was because eventually people said "Hell, this isn't right. The government shouldn't allow this" and made the government rein them in. Hell, even Sweden allowez effective slavery (though it wasn't called that, of course) up untill the 50's, a leftover from the liberal lawmaking of the 1800's. You see, even the Swedish medieval Church and Nobles believed poor people had more worth, had better moral conscience and more scruples, than the free capitalists ever did.

And no, poor people does not get richer because rich people do. That idealistic delusion has been disproven time and time again. There is no connection between social and economical liberty, one does not infer the other. People in the West prospered during the last century exactly because our governments took control and put limits to what people are allowed to do, and the many socialistic services they offer to their citizens.

[Montague]

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

This really illustrates the idea better then I can. Again, I'm not an advocate of pure capitalism, like kids working in salt mines and Pinkerton guys beating trespassers to death or whatever historical woes you might be referring to.

[breadbocks]

Communism is idiotic. Every country that has ever attempted any form of communist ideology has failed miserably. It destroys the freedom of individuals for the sake of equality. It demands endless sacrifice, punishes hard work and achievement and rewards liabilities and laziness.

All Communism has accomplished is the deaths of millions of people and the impoverishment of millions more.

So yeah, Capitalism is probably the better ideology.

This right here. This right here is utter bullshit.

There has not been a real national commune. There have been national Lenninist states, but not communist ones.

LEarn what the topic is.

[Montague]

Communism is idiotic. Every country that has ever attempted any form of communist ideology has failed miserably. It destroys the freedom of individuals for the sake of equality. It demands endless sacrifice, punishes hard work and achievement and rewards liabilities and laziness.

All Communism has accomplished is the deaths of millions of people and the impoverishment of millions more.

So yeah, Capitalism is probably the better ideology.

This right here. This right here is utter bullshit.

There has not been a real national commune. There have been national Lenninist states, but not communist ones.

LEarn what the topic is.

The utopian nonsense Marx talked about? Of course it's never happened, because the real world and people seemly don't work like that. Thats why communist governments needed to kill and brainwash and destroy so many people so they had a group left over who'd enjoy pridelessly toiling away on communal farms or factories without any economic security until they die. Not so much the people who might slack off or try to think of himself too much. Those types must die for the greater good.

Clearly communism failed to manifest because they simply did not kill enough people to create a pure communist utopia. Pol Pot came pretty close, damn near did reset civilization like he said he was going to.

[breadbocks]

STOP SAYING THAT! There is no such thing as a "Communist government". There are and were such things as "Leninist Governments", but a Commune is innately anarchic.

[Africa]

Communism can only work in a small community where everybody knows and trusts each other, and is intent on adhering to a certain lifestyle and set of ideals.

Capitalism can only "work", as in, produce wealth and opportunity without allowing some people to brutally abuse and exploit others, with a healthy dose of government regulation.

[Montague]

STOP SAYING THAT! There is no such thing as a "Communist government". There are and were such things as "Leninist Governments", but a Commune is innately anarchic.

They are governments guided by communist ideology. Marxist or Leninist government isn't an accurate catch-all, because there are all sorts of branches of ideological thought and neither is Socialist or any other nomenclature. The one thing they all had in common was their vision of a utopian communist society. Hence, communists. Since thats what they wanted, right? The people running these governments didn't want a proletarian dictatorship forever, they were communists.