Question from arrogant capitalist

[Hyung]

So i made this group on facebook, and I got a question from a capitalist about how is communism so great when they have capitalism. here's the question he posted:

"How can the quality of services provided by communism or even socialism, be anywhere near as good as the ones provided by capitalism?
You see, while communism can seem worryless on the outside, if you look at it's core, it's crappy.
here's an example of what I mean:
While in a capitalist state, you may have to pay for your healthcare. But it's worth it because the hospitals I have are trying to make me be their customer, so they can have a better life. So the best way to make more money is to advertise why they are better than the competition. For instance, a St.Lukes hospital may have an MRI machine, while a Mercy hospital may have more specialist doctors, therefore, they keep trying to one-up each other, and now you've got two high-quality hospitals.
In a communist state, you may not have to pay for your healthcare, but your healthcare is not as good as mine. It simply comes down to motivation. My motivation is to get more customers, therefore, more money, and therefore, live a better life. But a communist can't do this you see, since they are all equal, there is no chance to live a better life. So why motivate yourself to better your hospital, if the government is going to treat you all the same anyway?"

I didn't really know how to answer his question accurately, so I'm asking my comrades here are RevLeft for help. thanks:p

[AnthArmo]

One word, Cuba :lol:

(seriously, Cuba kicks the entire worlds ass in healthcare)

Tell him that direct democratic decision making in a socially owned enterprise is a more direct and superior way to developing the standard of living than indirect undemocratic capitalist competition.

Then all you have to do is point out the Soviet Union's lack of democracy and he'll get the picture

[el_chavista]

...So why motivate yourself to better your hospital, if the government is going to treat you all the same anyway?":p
The neofascist clique of the republican party in USA thinks alike: they cut short social expenditures so the bankrobber magnates can "disapear" 5,2 trillion $$.

[ZeroNowhere]

Government? What government?

[revolution inaction]

ROFL
Thats got to be the shitist argument for capitalism ever, the us health system is blatantly not superia to the health system in countries which dont use such a free market model, i'm not sure where to get statistics on it but some one will know.

[Cumannach]

There a hundred things you can say to demolish his stupid argument. Try these for starters.



While in a capitalist state, you may have to pay for your healthcare. But it's worth it because the hospitals I have are trying to make me be their customer, so they can have a better life.

In socialist countries the hospital directors will lose their jobs if they don't ensure adequate service for their 'customers' (sick people) and they will then have to get a different job something that they don't enjoy, and which may have less benefits.



So the best way to make more money is to advertise why they are better than the competition. For instance, a St.Lukes hospital may have an MRI machine, while a Mercy hospital may have more specialist doctors, therefore, they keep trying to one-up each other, and now you've got two high-quality hospitals.

Why don't St.Lukes and the Mercy just agree not to make any expensive improvements to their service which makes one hospital better than the other and the 'customers' will just have to like it or lump it since they have no choice.


In a communist state, you may not have to pay for your healthcare, but your healthcare is not as good as mine. It simply comes down to motivation. My motivation is to get more customers, therefore, more money, and therefore, live a better life. But a communist can't do this you see, since they are all equal, there is no chance to live a better life. So why motivate yourself to better your hospital, if the government is going to treat you all the same anyway?"

The government isn't going to treat you the same it will reward you for improvements and penalise you for a poor service. Your capitalist motivation is to make money, but our socialist motivation is to make people better. If these two interests should come into conflict which system is preferable? A private hospital wants to give you the most expensive treatments not the best. Copyrighted over-priced drugs is the capitalist treatment always. The socialist treatment can be non-patentable treatments, natural or synthetic, including preventative care and lifestyle modifications. Private hospitals are not interested in people being healthy, their motivation is to make money, to get more customers, to get more sick people.

Your capitalist hospital is in the business of making money, not treating illness. If I can make more money by offering luxury healthcare to the super-rich than by offering affordable healthcare to the poor and low income earners, that's what I must do. What do I care if most people can't afford healthcare?

In most capitalist countries the majority of people have either very poor (compared to socialist countries) or no healthcare at all.

[Radek]

[I can't post links, so you'll have to crack my devious code to get them]


ROFL
Thats got to be the shitist argument for capitalism ever, the us health system is blatantly not superia to the health system in countries which dont use such a free market model, i'm not sure where to get statistics on it but some one will know.
It's easy to defeat the 'free market healthcare' argument in theory, but its proponents rarely care and will just continue banging on about their imaginary friend, the utopian perfect market. When it comes to this topic nothing quite compares to statistics, and there are a lot of them.

All countries:
w w w. who.int/countries/en/

Select countries worth comparing:
w w w. who.int/countries/usa/en/
w w w. who.int/countries/gbr/en/
w w w. who.int/countries/can/en/
w w w. who.int/countries/cub/en/

Note particularly the cost per capita compared to the results -- the US spends twice as developed countries with 'socialist' universal healthcare for far worse results: so much for cost efficiency! And then we come to Cuba. From a brief glance Cuba usually has better results than the US, and those where it's worse are not far behind, and yet...

Cuba: Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2005): 333
US: Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2005): 6,347

Not bad for a third world country using a "crappy" system. You might want to have even more fun by comparing Cuba to other poor countries that use free market healthcare.

The reasons for this difference in cost are legion. Without researching it (and perhaps someone else knows better) I'd be inclined to suggest that the major causes are: profits extracted by insurance companies; the need to spend money advertising to get "customers" (thus turning the capitalist's own argument against him and suggesting unnecessary duplication of services); the lack of preventative healthcare, including both the refusal to treat those without insurance until they are on their deathbeds and the reluctance of said people to go to hospital until it is serious enough to pillage the college fund money for; and the profit motive demanding more and more expensive -- if useless -- drugs.

[LOLseph Stalin]

It all comes down to statistics I think. If you look at countries where you're charged for healthcare, you'll notice that millions of people don't even have access to proper healthcare because they can't afford it. Like as a Canadian, i'm proud to say we have universal healthcare. Wait times may be longer, but it's worth it when everybody is able to get treated. Also, like a typical Capitalist he overlooked the factor that everybody isn't exactly equal. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". For example, a family with four kids would definitely need more than a student living on their own.

Anyway, I hope I was of some help. :)

[Nwoye]

The government isn't going to treat you the same it will reward you for improvements and penalise you for a poor service.

Excuse me for sounding like a reactionary douchebag but isn't that just another example of planned economies imitating market conditions?

[Dóchas]

like somone said before just look at cuba they have got one of the best healthcare systems in the world even though they have an embargo imposed on them. cuban doctors are highly respected and prized in many hospitals all over the world

[Blackscare]

Excuse me for sounding like a reactionary douchebag but isn't that just another example of planned economies imitating market conditions?

To me it's just evidence of basic logic that exists in every system: if you suck, you're replaced. No system is going to accept bad service from people, I don't think it's inherent in capitalism. Back in the day when monarchy was all the rage a king could kill any servant or noble who wasn't performing their task or managing the country correctly.

[Cumannach]

Excuse me for sounding like a reactionary douchebag but isn't that just another example of planned economies imitating market conditions?

Being removed from your post for incompetency is not a 'market condition'. A market condition is; the private ownership and control of capital; the unplanned production of commodities and services; purchase and sale of means of production and so on. Profiteering is the fundamental 'market condition'. If a hospital administrator succeeds at this he will retain his post, if when he's providing a terrible service to patients.

[Cumannach]

That's the kind of answer that makes most average people scared to live in a communist society. It's totally idiotic to say that in order to prevent unequal (fill in the blank) we all need to lower our standards and deal with it. Society should always strive to improve and better serve it's people, and as socialists and communists we have to prove why our system would do that.

No comrade I was saying that free market capitalism produces monopolies which stunt competition and hence innovation.

[Blackscare]

No comrade I was saying that free market capitalism produces monopolies which stunt competition and hence innovation.

Ahh ok sorry then :D

[davidasearles]

There is nothing in market health care that cannot exist under socialism. There are several models which could operate at the same time.

1 A Worker sign up with a health care provider at a certain number of labor hour vouchers per year. The worker likes the service he or she continues, or if not goes down the street. With enough walk aways the worker's cooperative shuts the provder down, or limits its services to those that people are happy with.

2. A worker goes to a dentist, is happy with the service, contines to go back. Enough people decide that they would rather go somehwhere else the dentist works part time as an electrician.

3. Helthcare for people who do not work comes out of a fund, but still the individual chooses the provider.

[Woland]

There is nothing in market health care that cannot exist under socialism. There are several models which could operate at the same time.

1 A Worker sign up with a health care provider at a certain number of labor hour vouchers per year. The worker likes the service he or she continues, or if not goes down the street. With enough walk aways the worker's cooperative shuts the provder down, or limits its services to those that people are happy with.

2. A worker goes to a dentist, is happy with the service, contines to go back. Enough people decide that they would rather go somehwhere else the dentist works part time as an electrician.

Labor vouchers cannot be traded or exchanged or anything. What you just suggested is no different than the current capitalist system!

In socialism, free quality healthcare will be provided to all by the government/society. Already the USSR and Cuba always had some of the best healthcare systems, since it was always a priority.

[Kassad]

Under the profit system of healthcare, it's impossible to trust anyone. If a doctor tells you that you need surgery of some sort, do we know if you truly need surgery or if he is just trying to make another buck? It's a totally flawed system and when comparing the systems of the United States with those nations that have single-payer healthcare, you find the truth of the matter. Using "market" healthcare and other preposterous means of healthcare, or even education or basic services, creates another thing the corporatists can put a dollar sign on. That means lower quality standards, as the privatized industries will do whatever it takes to save money. It also means sub-par service and outrageous costs. There is absolutely no logical argument for such a system.

Of course the wealthy and those who are well-to-do will support private healthcare. Since millions cannot afford even basic treatment, that means less people to wait on to get services. The rich don't care, since they can afford any of the treatments. I mean, honestly. Have you ever met a homeless man who can't afford healthcare services advocating market economics and laissez-faire capitalism? If so, then we might need to get him to a clinic faster than I thought.

[Pogue]

To be honest theres really no point in having or 'winning' these moronic futile and pointless arguments with 'capitalists', they're always internet nerds or spolit kids and its just a waste of time, you get nothing from it, its just annoying and tiresome and stressful. The only people worth debating with, in front of or to are the working class themselves. By all means try to convince them but don't waste time on idiot right wingers, especially those on the internet. Its just boring, tiredom, just forget it.

[mikelepore]

To be honest theres really no point in having or 'winning' these moronic futile and pointless arguments with 'capitalists', they're always internet nerds or spolit kids and its just a waste of time, you get nothing from it, its just annoying and tiresome and stressful. The only people worth debating with, in front of or to are the working class themselves. By all means try to convince them but don't waste time on idiot right wingers, especially those on the internet. Its just boring, tiredom, just forget it.

You're right that "capitalists" won't listen to reason, but I believe that (1) it's helpful to "talk past" them, and address the rest of the audience about what's wrong with certain bad arguments; (2) it's good practice to answer bad arguments that are common among conservative and fence-sitting working class people, which aren't too different from what the "capitalists" are saying.

[Unregistered]

Labor vouchers cannot be traded or exchanged or anything.

They would be perfectly fine to circulate or exchange.

[QUOTE=BehemothTheCat;1347400]
What you just suggested is no different than the current capitalist system!


Why some things most like will be quite similar.

My idea is that the fewer things that have to chage the sooner we'll have worker collective control of the ndutial means of production and distribution. But a big difference will be that workers who want to work will have labor vouchers to exchange for health care, where the workers who want to work (even thise famlies where parents work a combined 96 hours out of the week) now do not have money to pay for health care.

[StalinFanboy]

Tell him he's a sick fuck for thinking that medical aid should be some sort of game.

[MarxSchmarx]

"How can the quality of services provided by communism or even socialism, be anywhere near as good as the ones provided by capitalism?
You see, while communism can seem worryless on the outside, if you look at it's core, it's crappy.
here's an example of what I mean:
While in a capitalist state, you may have to pay for your healthcare. But it's worth it because the hospitals I have are trying to make me be their customer, so they can have a better life. So the best way to make more money is to advertise why they are better than the competition. For instance, a St.Lukes hospital may have an MRI machine, while a Mercy hospital may have more specialist doctors, therefore, they keep trying to one-up each other, and now you've got two high-quality hospitals.
In a communist state, you may not have to pay for your healthcare, but your healthcare is not as good as mine. It simply comes down to motivation. My motivation is to get more customers, therefore, more money, and therefore, live a better life. But a communist can't do this you see, since they are all equal, there is no chance to live a better life. So why motivate yourself to better your hospital, if the government is going to treat you all the same anyway?"
Refutation of this is easy. Economics is a stochastic subject matter, not a deterministic one.

Capitalism is not about "good" customer service. It is about "adequate" customer service. In this regard, it is no better, in fact worse, than state ownership, because at least in the latter bureaucrats are nominally accountable to the people their industries serve.

To argue that financial incentives motivative capitalists to provide ever better service is to neglect the fact that in equilibrial market conditions where small fluctuations in profit are a daily occurrence, it doesn't pay for any one company to try to marginally improve their product if the benefits from such improvements are masked by the fluctuations in marginal profits.

Capitalism is about avoiding the "gambler's ruin". Because marginal improvements are temporary, they cannot help describe a firm escape the gambler's ruin. As such, marginal improvement (like, say, having a real human being everytime you call a help line) are unprofitable. As long as a large enough market is "tolerating" the status quo (like annoying phone trees), there is, in the long run, little room for innovation. Innovation therefore needs to focus on more profitable areas, like improving bandwidth, that don't directly affect most customers. Hence, from the perspective of improving any given metric, say, customer service, capitalism fails miserably because it forces scarce resources to be allocated towards the most profitable division, rather than the division that helps out customers the most. This is not a problem faced when the means of production are publically owned.

[Hyung]

wow, this guy doesnt know when to quit. Here's what he said even further as a response to you guys:



"you might want to consider is that you could not congregate with your friends over the internet if there was no capitalism.

The whole basis of the motivation arguement your friends gave is easily rubutted by one simple fact. Men are not ants. They never will be. It is human nature to be greedy. A marxist utopia is based of theories and ideas, and will never be able to exsist. WIIFM (What's in it for me?) will be the only way to motivate men.
One thing your friend said was "If they don't do a good job, they will be punished" So who's the one doing the punishing? The government obviously. But, who's the one punishing the Governmnet if the government follows natures way and takes advantage of it's people? The people themselves? Well one has more weapons, so probably not.
They have said that capitalism enables more efficient resource allocation, whereas communism's central planners don't even know who needs what. They have written that capitalism provides a mechanism for savings and investment, where communism consumes the "seed grain" and causes a famine next year. They have noted that capitalism allows and encourages innovation, whereas communism seeks to fulfill "needs" that are predefined. They have conceded that capitalism creates wealth, whereas communism is based on a false zero-sum notion and thus destroys it. They have even acknowledged that capitalism produces food and prosperity, whereas history teaches us that communism has achieved only starvation.

Capitalism is the only *moral* system because it's based on the inalienable individual rights of life, liberty, and property. A man owns his own body, life, mind, actions, and the tangible and intellectual property he creates. Any attempt to "redistribute" this is merely theft (and, as the above arguments have shown, such theft destroys the goose who lays the golden eggs). Stripped of its jargon and Big Lies, communism is thuggery. Stealing is the basis of the whole thing. And of course there are all those people who need killing, because they shouldn't have gone and objected to the stealing.

Also, one thing you might want to consider is that you could not congregate with your friends over the internet if there was no capitalism."




"Also none of them actually quoted statistics, other than "look at Cuba"
Well I did, and guess what, they are still immigrating to the US.
I also noticed I have not quoted statistics, so here is some, look at Estonia.
Before the crash of USSR, their unemployment rate was over 30% (keep in mind a depression by our definition is over 10%).
So their prime minister took over at age 32, no experience and with quite a mess on his hands. He picked up a book by Milton Friedman, and now Estonia is the most advanced, and has the highest standard of living in all of Eastern Europe.


They said we "overspend" And as a student of accounting, I know we are. If we hired some accountants in Washington, the "crisis" that we are in--whcih isn't really a crisis, it's just our cycle, every capitalist country has them, and then bounce back-- would not have been this bad. So we are just as guilty as Communism for electing people who know nothing of economics."


Let us destroy this arrogant capitalist....with an even better arguement!:lol:

[Hyung]

this arguement is taking place on the discussion board at a group called the "Communist Party of Facebook" on, obviously, Facebook. lol Join in if you have facebook

[Cumannach]

You can tell him he doesn't believe democracy can work ;

"One thing your friend said was "If they don't do a good job, they will be punished" So who's the one doing the punishing? The government obviously. But, who's the one punishing the Governmnet if the government follows natures way and takes advantage of it's people? The people themselves? Well one has more weapons, so probably not."
(Cappie Moron)

He's a 'totalitarian' therefore. The rest of what he says is just untrue. Ask him to prove it with sources. He can't cause it's false.

[ZeroNowhere]

you might want to consider is that you could not congregate with your friends over the internet if there was no capitalism.
I don't-
What.


It is human nature to be greedy.
Meaningless sophistry. If you trap thousands of people in a room with only one small air hole, their 'human nature' is going to be largely different to what it would be if they were outside. Or do we have a 'greedy gene'? Who knows?
Now, more importantly, how does this make socialism invalid? Seriously, nobody seems to ask that. How does it make socialism invalid? At all?


A marxist utopia is based of theories and ideas, and will never be able to exsist.
Baseless.


WIIFM (What's in it for me?) will be the only way to motivate men.
Cool. Then again, what about women?


They have said that capitalism enables more efficient resource allocation, whereas communism's central planners don't even know who needs what.
They? Who is this? And are they starving as of now? Veblen would disagree.
Also, socialism is not state capitalism.


They have noted that capitalism allows and encourages innovation, whereas communism seeks to fulfill "needs" that are predefined.
What? The Spanish communes would refute this, and it's a baseless claim anyways.


They have even acknowledged that capitalism produces food and prosperity, whereas history teaches us that communism has achieved only starvation.
Communism? What communism? Also, interestingly, there is still starvation under global capitalism,as there was in the capitalist USSR. So I don't see your point here.


Capitalism is the only *moral* system because it's based on the inalienable individual rights of life, liberty, and property.
I'm sorry, but I don't see why the right to private property is 'inalienable'. As for life and liberty, certain people in Chile may have disagreed with you. Well, before being killed. Though it's bollocks anyways. When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die, etc.


Stripped of its jargon and Big Lies, communism is thuggery. Stealing is the basis of the whole thing.
What. I don't-
Oh, please, chattel slaves used to be property, presumably setting them free was stealing? Or...?


A man owns his own body, life, mind, actions, and the tangible and intellectual property he creates.
I don't know if he's trying to claim that free will exists, or just going for an irrelevant rhetorical flourish.


Also none of them actually quoted statistics, other than "look at Cuba"
Cuba is irrelevant to the argument.

[davidasearles]

There is nothing in market health care that cannot exist under socialism. There are several models which could operate at the same time.

1 A Worker sign up with a health care provider at a certain number of labor hour vouchers per year. The worker likes the service he or she continues, or if not goes down the street. With enough walk aways the worker's cooperative shuts the provder down, or limits its services to those that people are happy with.

2. A worker goes to a dentist, is happy with the service, contines to go back. Enough people decide that they would rather go somehwhere else the dentist works part time as an electrician.

3. Helthcare for people who do not work comes out of a fund, but still the individual chooses the provider.


Labor vouchers cannot be traded or exchanged or anything. What you just suggested is no different than the current capitalist system!

In socialism, free quality healthcare will be provided to all by the government/society. Already the USSR and Cuba always had some of the best healthcare systems, since it was always a priority.

Behemoth, you raise merely definitions of what you think Socialism must be.

Your version of what socialism must be is that labor credits may not circulate and the "the government" will provide health care.

Second thing first - you certainly do not mean to suggest that the government itself will provide the care. What you mean is that government will foot the bill, the tab, the charge or whatever you want to call it. There is no reason that people under such a system couldn't vote with their feet, taking their health care needs down the street, with the result of having some consequences from a provider that people continually walk away from.

And then onto circulation. A prohibition on circulation of currency is a bug-a-boo. Considering all of the problems that it solves, I would think that no one would be against it.

[piet11111]

whats in it for me ?

well a lot more then what i get out of capitalism !
job security ,free healthcare , free education , social security if i need it and i get to work a lot less because i only need to work as much as is needed to keep the system going instead of enriching some bastard.

that more then fulfills my selfish desires :tt2:

[The Red Herring]

Few things...


They have noted that capitalism allows and encourages innovation, whereas communism seeks to fulfill "needs" that are predefined.
Many of our modern day advances have been created through the US Military-Industrial complex. While that system itself is a product of hyper-capitalism, ironically it is an example of how central planning can produce goods. The government realizes there is a need for something (passing information after phone lines have been taken down), and appropriates the proper resources to see it created (early internet databases). Many of the modern advances we've seen have started or been maintained by big government spending. Truly the free market provides us our modern resources.

The appropriation of resources is what gives birth to innovation, since we are just as much greedy as we are intuitive. Did the maker of the wheel think that he would benefit monetarily by creating it? Or was it simply a better way to get around?


Capitalism is the only *moral* system because it's based on the inalienable individual rights of life, liberty, and property. A man owns his own body, life, mind, actions, and the tangible and intellectual property he creates.Locke also made claim that the value of goods should be based off of labor, and that people should have the right to own the property their labor produces. Every worker in an auto factory, every toy maker, every coal miner, they produce cars, toys, and fuel with their labor. And yet they are left without any say in their property, excluded by the capitalist who makes claim to the factory the good is made in. Workers are forced into a political-economy in which they are subjected to the will of the bourgeois. If 900 people all put in labor for one item, those 900 people have property rights in it, and what happens to it.

Or to even further affront your thought; why do we have inalienable rights Who gives them to us?


Any attempt to "redistribute" this is merely theft (and, as the above arguments have shown, such theft destroys the goose who lays the golden eggs). Stripped of its jargon and Big Lies, communism is thuggery. Stealing is the basis of the whole thing. And of course there are all those people who need killing, because they shouldn't have gone and objected to the stealing. The only reason its 'stealing' is because the modern capitalist societies see wealth as something that is privately owned, instead of accepting every other person who went into producing it and acknowledging that all profits are communally owned by society. Please show me where in the Constitution it protects right to economic wealth. I just see life, liberty, and freedom, not even property.


Also, one thing you might want to consider is that you could not congregate with your friends over the internet if there was no capitalism.The internet was funded and created by the government as part of our military-industrial complex which is effectively central planning for the military's needs.