TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- capitalism vs communism
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

http://www.nesplayer.com/nintend-o-vision/tetris.htm

so unless your that crazy japanese guy that beat tetris on the hardest level, communism dosn't work

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The US actually surpassed canada this past year .

eh in quality of life? source?

Re: Re: Re: capitalism vs communism

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus why is it different from other westerners

Because they simply do not know what communism is to debate it in the first place. They do not think of Marxism when they think of communism, but totalitarianism...

(Obviously not all Americans, some have actually got their views through education, not through government propaganda or Fox tv)

Re: Re: Re: capitalism vs communism

quote:

Originally posted by Heinz so u support communism and not the form of your own government?

Er...I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion from my earlier comments but anyway...

I do not think communism will work. However, I do agree with the Marxist perspective of the world (which incidently is almost identicle to the conservative/realist perspective)

The form of government/political system I support is a blend of socialism with capitalism, like most western systems, including USA are, its just that I would like to see it lean a lot more to the socialist side (what the UK used to be like before Margret Thatcher took over and killed our country by modelling it on the USA)

Re: Re: capitalism vs communism

quote:

Originally posted by rizen Mircosoft Windows has no freedom

Yes. With unhindered capitalism, Microsoft can grow and consume whatever it wants. Kind of like what Clear Channel is being allowed to do.

Anyway, if I'm using Apple, does that mean I'm a communist?

Re: Re: Re: capitalism vs communism

quote:

Originally posted by Ondrayce Anyway, if I'm using Apple, does that mean I'm a communist?

No, that makes you a gothic satanist.

http://objective.jesussave.us/propaganda.html - scroll down to the mac section.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic No, that makes you a gothic satanist. http://objective.jesussave.us/propaganda.html - scroll down to the mac section.

woo, that was the sickest shit i have read in a long while, are they actually serious

I support the communist colors of McDonalds

Re: Re: Re: Re: capitalism vs communism

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Er...I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion from my earlier comments but anyway... I do not think communism will work. However, I do agree with the Marxist perspective of the world (which incidently is almost identicle to the conservative/realist perspective) The form of government/political system I support is a blend of socialism with capitalism, like most western systems, including USA are, its just that I would like to see it lean a lot more to the socialist side (what the UK used to be like before Margret Thatcher took over and killed our country by modelling it on the USA)

Mr. Smiley is there anything that the U.S. did not do to the world, every commentary you post has some derogatory overtone on American society, people, politics when speaking on the subject matter. You started off your first post by insinuating that most Americans have no clue about communism, only what has been fed to them by American government propoganda and Fox News.

I ask you this question, what great understanding does Europe have of Communism that would differ from the American point of view? When you make such commentaries please demonstrate the differing viewpoints that Europeans and Americans would have so that your post doesn't seem devoid of any substance other than pure rhetoric over American culture. Would Romanians, Hungarians, the former Yugoslavian states, Poles have an appeal still for Communism as it existed in their nations, intrinsically flawed. With the exception of some small minority of Russians who still have an infatuation for the superpower state that existed under so called Communism, as is the case with China today. I see few who cares for the failed system of Communism as practiced by governments in the world, past and present. If you can name me one successful "Communist" state I would welcome that and if you can't why do you think this is so.

quote:

Mr. Smiley is there anything that the U.S. did not do to the world, every commentary you post has some derogatory overtone on American society, people, politics when speaking on the subject matter

America...killed...my...goldfish

No seriously I take your point. Out of all nationalities in the world I have met I think Americans are the nicest bunch of people I have met, so I obviously have no beef to grind with them.

However, you are right, I am not a big fan of American society or politics (foreign politics that is) and the reason I am so out spoken about it in here is mainly due to the number of people here who stand up for it...obviously I will air my disagreement!

quote:

You started off your first post by insinuating that most Americans have no clue about communism, only what has been fed to them by American government propoganda and Fox News

No offence to you or any other Americans but every single time I have chatted to an American about communism or socialism I get exactly the same thing - that communism means you are not free etc, and anyone who says that simply does not know what communism actually is (and the origin of their views stems from government propaganda during the Cold War)

Now when the majority of Americans who comment on communism actually say what communism is, then I will change my view, until then, I stick by my comments that Americans dont know what communism is!

quote:

Would Romanians, Hungarians, the former Yugoslavian states, Poles have an appeal still for Communism as it existed in their nations, intrinsically flawed

Politically I doubt they would want a return to communism (or Communism as it should be called in this sense) but economically I do actually think they would prefer it economically compared to what they have got now (and thats not me talking I've seen that view on countless news documentaries) They liked the social security and low crime levels for example compared with the huge unemployemtn and subsequent poverty they face now under capitalism

quote:

I see few who cares for the failed system of Communism as practiced by governments in the world, past and present

Now you yourself are living proof about what I said above...you are confusing a totalitarian fascist system of government for a political ideology (and as this thread is titled "Capitalism vs Communism" I assume we are talking ideologically)


Sorry if I offend you as that isnt my aim and I have no problems with American, but if we are going to have an ideological debate about communism, then can we please talk about the ideology communism and not the totalitarian fascist state of Russia (as I can assure you that resembles nothing of communism!)

quote:

Originally posted by biznology ummm...ok. whatever you say.

It's not what I say, it's what experience and the laws of economics say.

quote:

both forms of organization can and *ARE* perversed in their practiced forms. capitalism has its problems, just as Soviet Russia and CCCP China had\have.

True, but... Pure capitalism can't function because of social forces, pure communism can't work because of social forces AND because it's grounded in a faulty understanding of economic.

quote:

i agree with dmatrox in saying that somewhere between is preferable. Canada follows that course, just as Sweden and increasingly China. Sweden and Canada consistently rank higher on quality of life than even the US - but that isnt only dependent on economics.

I agree that the preferable system is capitalism with a safety net. Unfortunately, people like Von Mises would tell us that socialism in any form will ultimately lead to the collapse of society and reliance on subsistance living. We're currently seeing the first signs of this collapse (although our government systems are such that they will reform before they collapse) in Europe (pension reform, education reforms, healthcare reforms) and China (they have just decided to allow private property), the former Warsaw pact states, and we're seeing Cuba steadily decay since the loss of Soviet subsidies. Even in the US, arguably the least socialized of developed nations, is facing serious problems with our own socialized programs.

quote:

China is looking to catch the US in many areas. that being said China is not, and was never a utopian socialist state.

Agreed, but that's because a utopian socialist state can never be acheived (at least with human nature, productivity, and the economic realities of the world today)

quote:

how does that make either solution perfect?

Capitalism isn't perfect, and laissez faire capitalism is profoundly flawed because it refuses to acknowledge the proper role of government to mitigate and correct market inneficiencies. Pure laissez faire capitalism can only work correctly in efficient markets, and there are few if any (although commodities markets are pretty close) truly efficient markets.

The following (from the ultra-conservative economics department at UC Berkeley ) sums up the fundamental economic problem with communism.

quote:

Karl Marx, one of the few in the nineteenth century to see the explosion of wealth the twentieth century would bring, mocked the sober, dark-suited businessmen of his time. They claimed to want only stability. Their claimed to view revolution with horror. Yet they were themselves, in a sense, the most ruthless revolutionaries the world had ever seen. Businessmen--members of what standard translations of Marx call the bourgeoisie-- were indeed a most revolutionary and progressive class. In a real sense, the prehistory during which scarcity, want, and oppression had been human destiny was about to end. It was the business class of entrepreneurs and investors, together with the market economy that pitted individual businessmen against each other through competition, that was responsible for this greatest of all revolutions in the potential human condition. But Marx also saw an overpowering danger: the economic system that the bourgeoisie had created would soon become the main obstacle to happiness. It could, Marx thought, create wealth, but it could not distribute wealth evenly. Alongside prosperity would come increasing polarization of wealth. The rich would become richer. The poor poorer, kept in a poverty made all the more hateful because needless. Marx tried to make his argument as simple and convincing as one, two, three. He chose to analyze the economy using "labor value" units: define the production of the average worker to have a "labor value" of one. As time passes and productivity grows, the quantity of commodities that make up this one unit of value will increase. As long as this is remembered, the use of "labor values" is innocuous: production can be measured in any units as long as they are used consistently. At any given time, the economy as a whole has a fixed, set stock of capital. Call the amount of capital that the average firm has for each of its workers "Capital". The economy also has a set total flow of annual profits. Call the profits that the average firm earns divided by its total capital stock the "Profit_Rate". Call the annual wages of the average worker "Wages". Then it must be--arithmetically--that the Profit_Rate times Capital per worker plus Wages must add up to one, where everything is measured in terms of its "labor value". (1) Profit_Rate x Capital + Wages = 1 As time passes and economic development progresses, production becomes more and more capital intensive. More machines are used by each worker. New methods are more productive, and new methods are more capital intensive. Businesses that do not adopt the newest technology will lose first market share and then money as other, more efficient, more modern firms undersell them. So over time the variable "Capital"--the number of machines per worker--grows. But the economic system requires profits to function. If the rate of profit drops too low, then investors will stop investing. A falloff in investment causes a depression and unemployment. During the depression wages will drop, and the depression will not lift until the rate of profit is once again up above some minimum acceptable rate necessary to induce the business class to invest again. Call this long-run floor that bounds the sustainable Profit_Rate "Profit_Floor". Because the rate of profit cannot stay lower than the Profit_Floor for long, we know that: (2) Wages < 1 - Profit_Floor x Capital Over time, Marx argued, "Capital"--capital per worker--grows, and "Profit_Floor" stays the same. So Wages--the real annual wage of the average worker, defined in "labor value" terms--must fall. Profits per unit of capital must be at least as large as Profit_Floor. The number of units of capital per worker--Capital--grows. So either economic development comes to a halt, or workers' wages will keep falling. This was Marx's argument that capitalism can deliver rapid economic growth, but it cannot deliver permanently rising living standards for the working class--the proletariat. There are holes in this argument. When a normal reader hears "declining wages" he or she hears not that workers' share of total production falls, but that workers' material standard of living--their ability to buy goods and services on the market--falls. Yet workers' material standard of living is not "Wages" but is instead equal to the labor value of wages times the average productivity of labor. There is no reason in Marx's system for this--the labor value of wages times average labor productivity--to fall. One interpretation is that Marx never meant to imply that the absolute standard of living of workers falls, but only that relative standards of living fall--that workers would be paid a smaller share of total production, and would feel realtively deprived as they gazed on the palaces of the rich. But those who hold to such an interpretation have a very hard time facing passages in Marx's writings like: In proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the laborer, be his payment high or low, must grow worse. The law that always equilibrates the relative surplus [unemployed] population to the extent and energy of accumulation, this law rivets the laborer to capital more firmly than the wedges of Vulcan did Prometheus to the rock. It establishes an accumulation of misery, corresponding with accumulation of capital. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole, i.e., on the side of the [working] class... Or: The more productive capital grows, the more the division of labor and the application of machinery expands. The more the division of labor and the application of machinery expands, the more competition among the workers expands and the more their wages contract. [T]he forest of uplifted arms demanding work becomes thicker and thicker, while the arms themselves become thinner and thinner. Leon Trotsky, a good authority on Marx, thought that the doctrine was one of "relative immiserization" --increasing income inequality going along with rising working class material standards of living--in good times, absolute immiserization in bad times, all adding up to absolute immiserization over the long run. But the logic slips for "relative immiserization" as well. "Capital" is the value of the machines used by the average worker measured in labor value units. Yet the argument that "Capital" will increase is an argument that the machine-to-worker ratio will rise--not that the labor value of the machines used by each worker will rise. If the price of machines falls relative to the price of labor as economic development continues, the capital intensity of production can rise while the variable "Capital" measured in labor units stays constant. In fact, this is economic development: machines become cheap relative to labor as technology advances. Relative wages-of skilled and of unskilled workers-in rich industrial nations have by and large kept pace with the growth of productivity over the past two centuries. There has been no consistent pattern of "relative immiserization." The holes in Marx's logic would be unimportant had the substance of Marx's predictions been correct. If decade after decade had seen falling wages, growing productivity, and polarization of the income distribution, we would not care whether Marx's logic was airtight or not. We would say that while he got details wrong he got the big picture right. The holes would also be unimportant if we were judging Marx as a critic of his time. For in the mid-nineteenth century his fears were not unreasonable. The early stages of industrialization in Great Britain saw total production and national wealth rise, and saw wages fail to keep pace. It is possible to argue--it is not crazy to think--that from a material welfare standpoint the average unskilled laboring Englishman was worse off in 1840 than his predecessor had been in 1790. But Britain's "first industrial revolution" is the only national case of industrialization in which there is a "standard of living debate." In all subsequent national industrial revolutions, whether in Europe, in Asia on the Pacific rim, or in Europe's settler colonies, even early industrialization has enriched the poor. Marx, however, did not have this multiplicity of examples before him in the 1840's when his views crystallized. He had only one example of industrialization to draw on: Britain. In Britain large and visible sections of the working class were worse off in 1840 than in 1790. Spinning and weaving textiles had been a part-time occupation for many and a full-time occupation for some of Britain's rural poor. The "putting out" system by which merchants would hire rural "handloom weavers" to turn yarn into cloth had provided much employment in Britain's countryside in the early nineteenth century. But with the coming of the power loom first the wages of the handloom weavers collapsed, and then the jobs themselves disappeared. Dark satanic mills in Lancashire left rural weaving skills useless, and populations impoverished. Andrew Carnegie's father was an impoverished handloom weaver in rural Scotland. Deprived of his livelihood, the family emigrated to America. Some of the economists of the day said that the plight of the weavers was awful, but that nothing could be done. Attempts to ease their lot would only decrease the speed with which they abandoned the industry for other employments. This decreased speed of exit would lengthen and increase the total mass of misery generated by technological change. Hence the merciful thing was to let them starve as fast as possible. The fact that nineteenth-century economists preached such doctrines led Thomas Carlyle to call economics by a nickname that has stuck: "The Dismal Science." Such was the situation that confronted Friedrich Engels in the early 1840s when he went to work in his family firm in the British textile industry, and that he then taught to his friend Karl Marx. Is it any wonder that Marx turned his mind to trying to discover why it was that the tremendous advances in productivity of the industrial revolution did not raise the standard of living of the poor? But Marx mistook the birth pangs of industrial market capitalism for its death throes. In 1848 the belief that market capitalism inevitably produced a distribution of income that was unbearable and doomed to get worse was reasonable. By 1867, when Marx published the first volume of Capital, such a belief was eccentric. And by 1883, when Marx died, such a belief was indefensible. By 1914 or 1933 it was a doctrine not of reason, but of pure faith alone. Why, then, spill so much ink on Marx? Because Marx became the prophet and his writings became the sacred texts of what can only be described as a Major World Religion: Communism. As interpreted by Lenin and others, Communism has been one of the major political forces of the twentieth century. Without Marx, the history of the twentieth century would have been unimaginably different: probably much better, possibly much worse, but very much other than it actually was. The dogmas of Communism as derived from the writings of Marx dictated insane and destructive policies to governments that ruled over billions, and left pronounced scars on the history of the twentieth century.

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_intro1.html

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley America...killed...my...goldfish No seriously I take your point. Out of all nationalities in the world I have met I think Americans are the nicest bunch of people I have met, so I obviously have no beef to grind with them. However, you are right, I am not a big fan of American society or politics (foreign politics that is) and the reason I am so out spoken about it in here is mainly due to the number of people here who stand up for it...obviously I will air my disagreement! No offence to you or any other Americans but every single time I have chatted to an American about communism or socialism I get exactly the same thing - that communism means you are not free etc, and anyone who says that simply does not know what communism actually is (and the origin of their views stems from government propaganda during the Cold War) Now when the majority of Americans who comment on communism actually say what communism is, then I will change my view, until then, I stick by my comments that Americans dont know what communism is! Politically I doubt they would want a return to communism (or Communism as it should be called in this sense) but economically I do actually think they would prefer it economically compared to what they have got now (and thats not me talking I've seen that view on countless news documentaries) They liked the social security and low crime levels for example compared with the huge unemployemtn and subsequent poverty they face now under capitalism Now you yourself are living proof about what I said above...you are confusing a totalitarian fascist system of government for a political ideology (and as this thread is titled "Capitalism vs Communism" I assume we are talking ideologically) Sorry if I offend you as that isnt my aim and I have no problems with American, but if we are going to have an ideological debate about communism, then can we please talk about the ideology communism and not the totalitarian fascist state of Russia (as I can assure you that resembles nothing of communism!)

No I'm not offended at all, just figured that since it is a policial discussion forum that you would have delved deeper into the reasons why the American understanding of Communism is so shortsighted, many Americans here might thus be able to better understand it, see my point. I understand your point that Communism-so called, in governments that practiced it were totalitarian for the most part. Which then beckons the question of the social system as put forth by Marx, is the theory of the system of Communism itself faulty or is it the governments who attempt to practice Communism, while attempting to restrain others in pursuit of an "egalitarian society", who restrains the government itself ala China.

quote:

Which then beckons the question of the social system as put forth by Marx, is the theory of the system of Communism itself faulty or is it the governments who attempt to practice Communism, while attempting to restrain others in pursuit of an "egalitarian society", who restrains the government itself ala China.

I think its a bit of both. To be perfectly honest, I think human nature would most likely get in the way of communism or anarchism (the latter stages of communism) as I believe humans need something like the state to give them security which communism eventually sets out to destroy. What we saw in Russia was the 'vanguard' period or the counter revolutionary period, after that communism was supposed to turn into anarchism according to Marx when the state would 'whither away'. Unfortunately, the vanguard period never concluded cos Stalin had no intention of letting go of power (I guess it went to his head like it does a lot of leaders...and women!)

If the USSR had somebody in charge that was committed towards fulfilling Marx's ideas out (maybe Trotsky?) and had not basically gone power mad and killed 20 million of their people, we may have a different view towards communism?

It is quite possible that the West had a lot to do with the vanguard period never concluding as the West has to be against communism (the ideology) as, well, obviously, the ruling elite lose all their power and their wealth is distributed equally (hence our governments trying to turn us against communism) To counter the threat of the West, the USSR would need to be a state with a powerful military to protect itself from the US and NATO

This is another reason I dont think communism would work because you have no defence against the West who will fight any kind of collective economy as they are the ones that lose out (due to globalised economy) as the US did in Chile when they voted in Allande (and replaced him with Pinochet who went onto kill 1000s!) If you do build up your defences and have strict laws intending to combat counter revolutionaries etc, you cannot have the free society that Marxism advocates...

Another major factor that helps understand why communism failed in Russia and China (and virtually every other place it was attempted) is because communism was never designed for a peasant agricultural society. It was meant for Britain and Germany, the two industrial giants of the time. Communism is based around the means of (mass) production, and if you dont have that, then you dont have the key ingregient to make communism work! (Mass production means high levels of wealth so more to share around, peasent societies have little wealth to share around)

Still, we say communism has failed, but at the same time, capitalism has failed. The worlds richest country has the highest levels of poverty in the Western world with no free health care (to the same standard as private health care) and has the highest crime. Under communism, altho it was totalitarian politically, economically, they had social security and high levels of employment.

I think communism will unltimately fail as humans desire power/personal security so even without the factors I meantioned above I think it would be doomed from the start, but there is no reason why we cannot take the good points of communism/socialism and blend them with capitalism (as various European countries have shown including the UK)

I think the 'perfect' society (or as near to perfect as possible due to the fact that humans are a bunch of absolute cu nts most of the time!!) is a blend of the two...the economic theory of Keynes (as practiced by the UK before Thatcher took over) when Labour actually WERE socialist!

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew eh in quality of life? source?

That UN Human Development report that everybody uses to rate countries. Hehe I remember when it came out that some Canadians got pissed, and did their own surveys to show that they were better than the US ... never mind the fact that they previously touted the UNHD report rankings for the past decade .

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/.../cty_f_CAN.html

quote:

Originally posted by occrider That UN Human Development report that everybody uses to rate countries. Hehe I remember when it came out that some Canadians got pissed, and did their own surveys to show that they were better than the US ... never mind the fact that they previously touted the UNHD report rankings for the past decade . http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/.../cty_f_CAN.html

yeah yeah, as long as sweden kicks your ass by far it's fine

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew yeah yeah, as long as sweden kicks your ass by far it's fine

I'm willing to cede defeat to the Swedes so long as we beat those uppity canadians and you guys lose out to Norway

Hmmm how the hell did iceland get so high up???

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I'm willing to cede defeat to the Swedes so long as we beat those uppity canadians and you guys lose out to Norway Hmmm how the hell did iceland get so high up???

yeah but i can see a pattern, it's scandinavian countries oh what do they have in common? ahh i see, welfare

and yeah iceland is kind of a mystery. but i bet welfare has something to do with it

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew yeah but i can see a pattern, it's scandinavian countries oh what do they have in common? ahh i see, welfare and yeah iceland is kind of a mystery. but i bet welfare has something to do with it

Well I had thought that Germany had huge social programs but it looks like they're lagging ... somebody better tell them to up their welfare

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well I had thought that Germany had huge social programs but it looks like they're lagging ... somebody better tell them to up their welfare

they just haven't realized what true scandinavian welfare is yet they have some semi-nazi welfare

let me thread jack and say, the Palestinians seem to have it better than many nations, like Mongolia, Cape Verde, Burkina Faso, and EGYPT

in quasi thread-jack related matters:
Congrats go to the US for being much cooler than Canada and having a military that can kick there ass any day of the week


As for the Scandinavians, you have a long way to go to bring Finland back on to par with them. Sweden, considering annexing it like in the good old day by any chance soon? Maybe Denmark will help bring them back up to par. It seems nicely situated in the middle.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus ... As for the Scandinavians, you have a long way to go to bring Finland back on to par with them. Sweden, considering annexing it like in the good old day by any chance soon? Maybe Denmark will help bring them back up to par. It seems nicely situated in the middle.

huh Finland isnt that far behind...

plus they have more of the blondes, but Copenhagen has the total hotties and apparently Norwegian girls wear more thongs. Can we leave it at that?

ahh interesting Vesa...you obviously have the background, but even from my short visits to Helsinki I would agree with that 'ghost of Communism' idea. it does seem to linger everywhere. otherwise the city is largely as vibrant as any in Sweden, et al. (NOTE: I was last there in, ummm, February?) perhaps AS vibrant as Helsinki *can* seem in Feb.

that being said, its nothing like Russia or the like, and even Tallinn seemed that it was adapting more quickly to change than what little I saw in Finland.

Ive heard about imminent collapse, as it is a consideration in most Scandinavian countries, other than Norway (for the time being). its a shame, but without a post-War reconstruction project there cannot be the demand for faulty Keynesian Era economics.

sadly Im likely not as well versed as yourself|

Re: Re: Re: Re: capitalism vs communism

quote:

Originally posted by arctic No, that makes you a gothic satanist. http://objective.jesussave.us/propaganda.html - scroll down to the mac section.

Thats the awesomest thing I've ever read. I love my Mac even more now.

quote:

Originally posted by biznology but without a post-War reconstruction project there cannot be the demand for faulty Keynesian Era economics.

What do you mean by faulty Keynesian economics?


I don't think it is faulty at all in theory. It is only faulty in practice because the political envrionment for a fiscal policy that follows Keyens will almost never exist (well actually maybe it can in Europe, I forgot you guys like tax raises )

However, in naitons like the US, monetary policy can be controlled and is done very nicely for the economic cycles. However, taxes and government spending are not (altough Bush has done a wonderful job on his share of the cycle). For instance, had Clinton raised taxes (a very unpopular move) during the dot.com boom, it would have detered the boom, and also lessened the collapse.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: capitalism vs communism

quote:

Originally posted by Ondrayce Thats the awesomest thing I've ever read. I love my Mac even more now.

haha

'Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism. '

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.