Communism vs. Capitalism

[Osman Ghazi]

I'm not sure that this is a good idea, but what the hell lets go all out.

[Pete]

You need to provide a topic, an avenue, of debate if you want on to spring up. Just giving us the city won't really help anyone sitting here on a tuesday morning bored with their roomate still sleeping. Damn I want to turn on my music.

[The Feral Underclass]

I dont understand this thread or what either of you are talking about...can you explain please

[Osman Ghazi]

I dunno, i guess i was just bored with the other threads so i wanted to start an intersesting one. Point taken though, Let me see... Hmmm, topic, topic, topic ...
I guess were trying to find solutions but for that we would need a problem.
Hmmm...
Let's say the problem is poverty in the third world.

Which would be better to solve poverty in the third world: Capitlaism or Communism?

I guess the title of this thread needs to be changed then.

And when i say poverty, i am talking about simply raising the living standards of third world countries.

PS: sorry for the confusion everyone

[Hoppe]

Certainly capitalism. Or don't you need to have a capitalist state first before the transition to communism?

[John Galt]

Assuming that communism is better, which it isnt, the answer is still capitalism here.

Sharing nothing still means everyone has nothing

[Ortega]

Except that currently in the Third World, large corporations control large areas and large amounts of money. If all was shared, all would have a moderate amount of money when everything evened out. In the Third World, there are without a doubt people who have something, so it would not be "sharing nothing."

[FistFullOfSteel]

Take Africa for example:

Its very poor there,some people dont even have clean water near where they live,so communism would work,if all was shared,the water,the land etc.
The problem is that corporations want to have the fields,oil,gas etc

So i think communism would work great in the 3th world



:cuba:

[Hegemonicretribution]

I would say that a nationalist system would wok best in the short term for reversing a recession. Similar to in pre Nazi Germany, there was very little use in paying to much attention to money at home until things were organised. The vast cuts in unemployment would increase production of the country and the wealth of the people that are employed. If the money is spent on the companies they work for then there will be more investment in land labour and captal. This investment in capital will have long run benifits. Once the economy is producing in this way, then more effective international trade can take place with those countries that do not try to cripple it.

I said nationalist systems would be good in this circumstance, because if profits are spent on implorts then there is less money in the economy for its own developement...nationalism could promote home produced goods sale.

However if it was not an actual recession and was poverty striken for other reason such as poor ersources, then I would say communism. This is only if goods were distributed efficiently. That is that the price mechanism because more ineffective in extreme circumstances, and the way it would eventually (if at all) lead to a sollution would be through a vast drop in population. The communist system however could (if efficient) allocate goods in a way, as to stimulate industry.

[LuZhiming]

There isn't even a debate, we can all see the great accomplishments of Capitalism by looking at Russia, Cuba, and Nicaragua, right? :rolleyes: The U.S. got rich only off of its foreign interventions and slavery, and it is still one of the most unequal countries in the world.

[Bradyman]

How hard must people think for this question? Seeing how many third world countries are capitalist and nothing seems to be getting better, I would assume that any change would be better especially towards communism.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 12:56 AM
How hard must people think for this question? Seeing how many third world countries are capitalist and nothing seems to be getting better, I would assume that any change would be better especially towards communism.
Although I often use that as a response to people's exagerated criticisms of ex "commie" countries, it is not effective in a debate. The countries that have chosen communism, as of yet, have not generally been so much more better off, if at all. The only real way to decide is by weighing up both theories and deciding on realistic outcomes of what is likely to happen.

[nextamericanrev]

this is in response to the special forces hippe (sorry man you name is long)
I think that perhaps the reason that all communist countries up until this point have failed is perhaps the demonization of the word "communist" post cold-war america and its embargos on communist countries hasn't made it incredibly easy for those countries to live up to their full potiential.

Having lived in a third world country myself, I believe that a communist government replacing a capitalist one would make the people of that country alot better off. Instead of accepting "below mininum wage" jobs in poor working conditions at US run corporations (seeing as that is how we give aide to developing countries) the population could work together to tap unique natural resources and offer them to international trade increasing there exports while at the same time depeding on domestic goods to become more self-sufficient, which ultimetly would boost their GDP and allow for a better "quality" of life per se. While doing this also mainting an even distribution of wealth that all of us communist's love!

[bubbrubb]

I don't hink either works. There will nevr be true communism because someone always gets greedy and wants to be richer. The leaders always have bigger homes and more money. And well, capitalism just sucks

[Hegemonicretribution]

nextamericanrev I agree with you there. I was simply making the point that because of this, we can't say capitalism sucks or won't work...in the slim chance that capitalists have read their own ideology, they would discover that it has never existed either. I have a problem with the current system whatever you call it. I have many problems with Smith's arguments, I have found a number of contradictions and I have only read the first four books. I also disagree with Marx on a number of issues, many contextual. However the point still remains that saying something sucks or won't work...or is great, helps no one.

bubbrubb: see above.

[LuZhiming]

How have all Communist countries failed? Capitalist Russia has failed, Capitalist Nicaragua has failed, Capitalist Cuba failed. What a way to twist things. Most 'Communist' countries failed because they were terrorized and strangulated. Vietnam is a perfect example, it was left devastated from fighting Japanese, French, U.S., Chinese, Cambodians, South Vietnamese dictatorships, and suffering the brutal sanctions.

China is however an exception. The incompetence of Chinese leaders is what lead to China's failure.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 08:08 PM
Except that currently in the Third World, large corporations control large areas and large amounts of money. If all was shared, all would have a moderate amount of money when everything evened out. In the Third World, there are without a doubt people who have something, so it would not be "sharing nothing."
No, there is not enough money to go around. If pemex(mexican company owned by the gov.) the largest company in latin america (in worth) would sell the company and share the money with all mexicans, each mexican would receive the GRAND TOTAL OF $133, :o. Thats for the year, and its a one time pay.

Definetly capitalism is the way to go for latin america. Too bad only a few countries seem to want to do this, and they dont go all the way, but a little is better than nothing. <_<

[LSD]

No, there is not enough money to go around. If pemex(mexican company owned by the gov.) the largest company in latin america (in worth) would sell the company and share the money with all mexicans, each mexican would receive the GRAND TOTAL OF &#036;133, . Thats for the year, and its a one time pay.

Yah, you&#39;ve got a point, not only are resources badly devided within the third world, but the third world itself does not have an equall distribution of resources.

Wow.

Big surpise there.



Fact is, probably won&#39;t be able to see real development in the rest of the world until the "first" world eases it&#39;s domination (which they will never do willingly).
With the birth rate and all, it&#39;s probably inevitable, but it won&#39;t be pretty when it happens.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 29 2004, 06:40 AM

No, there is not enough money to go around. If pemex(mexican company owned by the gov.) the largest company in latin america (in worth) would sell the company and share the money with all mexicans, each mexican would receive the GRAND TOTAL OF &#036;133, . Thats for the year, and its a one time pay.

Yah, you&#39;ve got a point, not only are resources badly devided within the third world, but the third world itself does not have an equall distribution of resources.

Wow.

Big surpise there.



Fact is, probably won&#39;t be able to see real development in the rest of the world until the "first" world eases it&#39;s domination (which they will never do willingly).
With the birth rate and all, it&#39;s probably inevitable, but it won&#39;t be pretty when it happens.
How about the japan exploitation of the USA? why dont u ***** about that?

[Vinny Rafarino]

How about the japan exploitation of the USA? why dont u ***** about that?



I would ideed if you can show me how;


A) Japanese industry is benefitting at an extreme level from lower constant and variable capital rates by purchasing their constant capital from the USA and dramatically lowering their variable capital rates by accessing US labour pools.


B) Japanase GDP is increasing over 3.5% per business cycle (I would laugh at any number lower than 9% by the way) simply on yanqui industry alone.


Good luck esse.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 29 2004, 07:10 PM

How about the japan exploitation of the USA? why dont u ***** about that?



I would ideed if you can show me how;


A) Japanese industry is benefitting at an extreme level from lower constant and variable capital rates by purchasing their constant capital from the USA and dramatically lowering their variable capital rates by accessing US labour pools.


B) Japanase GDP is increasing over 3.5% per business cycle (I would laugh at any number lower than 9% by the way) simply on yanqui industry alone.


Good luck esse.
Look at all the japanese companies in the USA, thats the argument everyone gives fro the USA&#39;s exploitation over latin america, the american companies in latin america

[LSD]

Look at all the japanese companies in the USA, thats the argument everyone gives fro the USA&#39;s exploitation over latin america, the american companies in latin america

I think you&#39;re missing the point.

Japanese companies are not exploiting US workers because Japanese comapnies are not exploiting US workers
(Seems obvious doesn&#39;t it)

Japanese companies are exploiting, primarily, the very same types of people that US corporations are exploiting. The fact that there are Japanese companies selling in the US or with regional offices in the US is because the US is the biggest consumer market on earth.
But US workers are not slaving in Toyota plants.
Third world workers are slaving in Nike plants.

Japan depends on US consumers, but then so does much of the industrialized world.
Japan does not depend on US workers to make its products and to reduces its costs.
The US is not selling to the third world, they are using the third world to sell more to the first.

See the difference?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Look at all the japanese companies in the USA, thats the argument everyone gives fro the USA&#39;s exploitation over latin america, the american companies in latin america


You are missing the point amigo.


In order to consider a country&#39;s labour pool to be under "exploitation" you must show that the country in question&#39;s GDP is greatly increased by purchasing your constand and variable capital from a source other than a domestic one.


For example,

Inflation in the USA is at least 3% as pre-determined by the government. To combat this steady raise in constant capital, variable apital must be cut to the lowest possible rate while still maintaining enough labour to continue with production while extracting surplus value frok these products. There is always a "bottom line" when it comes to variable capital, as in either federal minimum wage or the lowest possible cost of variable capital versus production.

Once this "bottom line" is reached, constant capital steadily increases while surplus value steadily falls at the same rate of constant capital increase.

What this means is that "other sources" of constant and capital are required to keep surplus value in the black.

In a nutshell it means paying 3rd world labour costs that are a fraction of the domestic cost, which constitutes exploitation as these labourers are being paid less then others for the same work.


Prove that Japan fits this model and you will have a leg to stand on brutha.

[el_profe]

Raf and Lad.
The wages paid by those companies is considered above average in those 3rd world countries. You cant compare the wages of 1st world countries with the wages of 3rd world countries.

Those companies also have a higher cost of shipping and the cost of moving an entire factory to another place is also high.
Dont you think that some of these companies leave becaused they are offered lower taxes in other countries?

For people in 3rd world countries these jobs might be the only job they can get (since unemployment is high) and they rather work than starve to death, and they usually get paid more than the average salary (the average salary of their country).

Why deny people in 3rd world countries the opportunity to work?
if those jobs wouldnt there, then who woul employ them? , there is no money to invest in latin america, it needs many of thos jobs from foreign companies.

[LSD]

For people in 3rd world countries these jobs might be the only job they can get (since unemployment is high) and they rather work than starve to death, and they usually get paid more than the average salary (the average salary of their country).

Yes that&#39;s good, ignore the cause.

Why do you think that the US has so goddamn much. It sure as hell didn&#39;t come from within its own borders. Japan has practically no resources, but today it is an economic superpower.

The point is that the US is not only exploiting the workers of these countries, but the countries themselves as well.
You&#39;re right most of these workers couldn&#39;t be paid more anway.
But, if they were working for a local company or for the government or on a farm etc... where would their labour go?? At the very least it would remain in the country.
Where is it going today?? The US.

That&#39;s called exploitation.

[cubist]

OK,

El_profe has some valid points, don&#39;t disregard his knowlege he isn&#39;t stupid,

firstly yes the global corps do pay going national pay requiremeant in the country of which it is manufacturing.

but it demands alot from the country too,

it has been known to request monocrop cultivation leaving the land redundant to produce anything but that crop, and as each year goes by more crops are wanted and they want to pay less for it, and the farners have no alternative but to do so.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 30 2004, 02:50 AM

For people in 3rd world countries these jobs might be the only job they can get (since unemployment is high) and they rather work than starve to death, and they usually get paid more than the average salary (the average salary of their country).

Yes that&#39;s good, ignore the cause.

Why do you think that the US has so goddamn much. It sure as hell didn&#39;t come from within its own borders. Japan has practically no resources, but today it is an economic superpower.

The point is that the US is not only exploiting the workers of these countries, but the countries themselves as well.
You&#39;re right most of these workers couldn&#39;t be paid more anway.
But, if they were working for a local company or for the government or on a farm etc... where would their labour go?? At the very least it would remain in the country.
Where is it going today?? The US.

That&#39;s called exploitation.
they would be paid the same if they would work for a local company sometime even less, and if they work for the gov. the money goes to a crappy and corrupt gov.

And where does the labor go, you mean what they make?
depends on the product, look at gm in mexico, the cars they make are exported to latin america and they also stay in mexico.

The kellogs factory (it was in guatemala, although i thinked it moved to another country in C.A.) made the cereals that where distributed all through central america.

Many of those companies that put a factory in latin america, sure some of the products go to the USA, but also many put companies in latin america so its easier to distribute from in latin america instead of exporting everything from the USA.

Of course some of the profit goes to the USa, but with the amount of jobs they create and the money they put into latin america they get there fair share.

7 of the 10 largest companies in latin america are state owned, has that benefitted latin america? no.
Look at mexico, the largest company in latin america is Pemex (petroleum) it is state owned and has had many scandal where people in gov. have stolen money from it, and also the way they manage that is so bad, and even with all the money they make mexico is still poor. Same with venezula that has the 3rd largest company in latin america, its state owned.

[LSD]

they would be paid the same if they would work for a local company sometime even less, and if they work for the gov. the money goes to a crappy and corrupt gov.


7 of the 10 largest companies in latin america are state owned, has that benefitted latin america? no.
Look at mexico, the largest company in latin america is Pemex (petroleum) it is state owned and has had many scandal where people in gov. have stolen money from it, and also the way they manage that is so bad, and even with all the money they make mexico is still poor. Same with venezula that has the 3rd largest company in latin america, its state owned.

Yes, many countries in the thrid world are corrupt.
Many countries everywhere are corrupt.
And that hurts many.

But that&#39;s a different discussion.

The point here is that not only are people being hurt by their own corrupt officials/companies but by the US as well. The question is not one of total blame, many are responsible, but the US is a major one.

Furthermore you have to realize that the US (other 1st world countries of course, but lately mainly the US) has been responsible for supporting and sometimes creating these corrupt governemnt. Certainly they helped create circumstances that aided in the creation of such regimes.



And where does the labor go, you mean what they make?
depends on the product, look at gm in mexico, the cars they make are exported to latin america and they also stay in mexico.

The kellogs factory (it was in guatemala, although i thinked it moved to another country in C.A.) made the cereals that where distributed all through central america.

Many of those companies that put a factory in latin america, sure some of the products go to the USA, but also many put companies in latin america so its easier to distribute from in latin america instead of exporting everything from the USA.

Of course some of the profit goes to the USa, but with the amount of jobs they create and the money they put into latin america they get there fair share.

Think about it. Workers in the third world work for a US company which makes massive profits, none of which the workers see, and then sells the product of the workers&#39; labour back to them for far more than the company paid them to make it in the first place&#33;&#33;

"fair share"?
Hardly.

[Valishin]

Realizing we can&#39;t allow this cleric to get away so easily, Valishin attempts to trip her.
India might argue that point.


I think that perhaps the reason that all communist countries up until this point have failed is perhaps the demonization of the word "communist" post cold-war america and its embargos on communist countries hasn&#39;t made it incredibly easy for those countries to live up to their full potiential
Part of a countries ability to secceed is its appeal to others. The US is not beholden to trade with those countries.


Vietnam is a perfect example, it was left devastated from fighting Japanese, French, U.S., Chinese, Cambodians, South Vietnamese dictatorships, and suffering the brutal sanctions
If the ideology leads to an attempt to militarly force your will upon others than the results of said attempt be they possitive or negative have to be taken into account as results of the implementation of said ideology.


Now someone mentioned earlier that neither true captialism nor true communism has ever been tried. That is a valid point and as such the actual implementions of such ideologies are what we need to be discussing.


Someone else said that communism would be better because the money from the corporations could be taken and spread around. Ok fine what then. Then you have everyone having the same amount of money. That&#39;s fine. That means if your working with any sort of market system that all of you just became equally poor because of the law of supply and demand.. If your not working with a market system then the spreading of wealth was irrelevent to begin with. On top of that you just destoryed any attempts to get help from the outside world as without a market system your people don&#39;t have an equitable means to trade goods with those using a market system. The government can do it for you but is that really equal distribution which is the basis of the system?

But lets assume we get all that worked out. Now we have equal distribution of the wealth. Now what do we do? We have managed to close down the factories and forced all the capitalists to run off with their knowledge and equipment. So what products are we going to produce? We are reliant on the world market for trade because well we are a 3rd world country and by definition too poor to be self suffecent. That means not only do we have to produce goods but we need to be competitive with the capitalists. We have to figure out not only how to make the goods but also how to market them, again that knowledge we just kicked out. We also need to build an infrastructure before we can even think about any real growth economicially. That requires investment, but we are going to have to grow economically to get the funding for that because we kicked out the only people willing to invest with capital from outside of our system.

Seem like we are back to substance farming, but it was nice for the captialists we kicked out to buy us each new pair of shoes, some jeans, and a couple of shirts with the money we took from them and distributied.



Third world workers are slaving in Nike plants
You know Nike could just up and leave. What would the workers do then? Both groups are exploiting each other. The 3rd world people are exploiting the companies to get jobs so they can eat. The companies are exploiting the people to get labor cheeper than they would elsewhere.


But, if they were working for a local company or for the government or on a farm etc... where would their labour go?? At the very least it would remain in the country.
There wouldn&#39;t be labor to go anywhere, they don&#39;t have enough jobs.


Think about it. Workers in the third world work for a US company which makes massive profits, none of which the workers see, and then sells the product of the workers&#39; labour back to them for far more than the company paid them to make it in the first place&#33;&#33;
"fair share"?
Hardly.
Of course they are going to sell it back for more. They have salaries of no producing management, transport, marketing, research, taxes, and investment to pay for. That&#39;s a no brainer. All of those are vital (well except taxes) to the production and disturibution of goods. Not one of those can they do without. And yes that includes investment which is not only vital but the most difficult to aquire which is why it gets the largest payoff. Because of its importance and its difficulty to replace.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 31 2004, 12:36 AM

And where does the labor go, you mean what they make?
depends on the product, look at gm in mexico, the cars they make are exported to latin america and they also stay in mexico.

The kellogs factory (it was in guatemala, although i thinked it moved to another country in C.A.) made the cereals that where distributed all through central america.

Many of those companies that put a factory in latin america, sure some of the products go to the USA, but also many put companies in latin america so its easier to distribute from in latin america instead of exporting everything from the USA.

Of course some of the profit goes to the USa, but with the amount of jobs they create and the money they put into latin america they get there fair share.

Think about it. Workers in the third world work for a US company which makes massive profits, none of which the workers see, and then sells the product of the workers&#39; labour back to them for far more than the company paid them to make it in the first place&#33;&#33;

"fair share"?
Hardly.
Well thanks to who do they have a job?
yes they make alot of profits, but there product is sold alot and has high demand.

[LSD]

el_prof:


Well thanks to who do they have a job?

This is a rather complex issue disguised as a simple question.
Yes, the workers are employed by the American company, but the real question is why is that?

American corporations come into the third world and supplant and exploit existing resources, natural, human, or otherwise. These coporations are a foreign element entering into the local system. A local system which now finds a great deal of its resources going well outside of its borders.

The United States consumes far more than its geography or population would allow. Where do you think it gets the surplus from??

Sure people are getting jobs, but their work is going to bennefit consumers living thousands of miles away, their work doesn&#39;t help them or their families or their people.

And the argument that if the United States disappeared tomorrow, all these workers would suddenly have nothing to do if the hight of ludicrousness.

They don&#39;t need the US, they have just been forced into relying on them. Local jobs aren&#39;t there, because US business has forced them out or taken the resources they need.



yes they make alot of profits, but there product is sold alot and has high demand.

So?

That may make academic economic sense, but it does not change the fact that these profits emerge from the labour of workers who never see any of it. The people who actually make the "product [that] is sold alot and has high demand" do not gain from the profit, the US does.

That&#39;s called exploitation.

Valishin:


If the ideology leads to an attempt to militarly force your will upon others than the results of said attempt be they possitive or negative have to be taken into account as results of the implementation of said ideology.

How about liberalism? How about democracy?
Most great ideologies have required force to implement and maintain them.

Vietnam fought for its freedom from colonial oppression, and it got it. Much as the US had 200 years before.
Have we forgotten about the revolutionary war??


But lets assume we get all that worked out. Now we have equal distribution of the wealth. Now what do we do? We have managed to close down the factories and forced all the capitalists to run off with their knowledge and equipment. So what products are we going to produce?

Whatever out society needs.

We don&#39;t need the sacred knowledge of the holy writs of the capitalism that these poor capitalists are "[running] off with" and exactly how much equipment do you think these people will carry of with them??
Whole factories on their backs perhaps??

Don&#39;t fool yourself, the infastructure will still be there.


We are reliant on the world market for trade because well we are a 3rd world country and by definition too poor to be self suffecent.

Don&#39;t redefine definitions.

Assuming we aren&#39;t talking about the Western Sahara, there probably are enogh resources within the country, they just aren&#39;t probably distributed.

Remeber Japan is about as first world as it gets, but natural resource wise they have SHIT.

Once the corrups officials/corporations/criminals are gone, the average person will no longer be "too poor".


We also need to build an infrastructure before we can even think about any real growth economicially. That requires investment, but we are going to have to grow economically to get the funding for that because we kicked out the only people willing to invest with capital from outside of our system.

Again, physical infastructure already there, economic infastructure we don&#39;t want.


You know Nike could just up and leave. What would the workers do then? Both groups are exploiting each other. The 3rd world people are exploiting the companies to get jobs so they can eat. The companies are exploiting the people to get labor cheeper than they would elsewhere.

um.....do you know the meaning of "exploitation", because the contention that a 12 year old worker is "exploiting" Nike is sort of, well, insane.


There wouldn&#39;t be labor to go anywhere, they don&#39;t have enough jobs.

Because the resources and labour is going to a corrupt government or a corrupt corporation. The resources are there, the jobs are there, you think that if the US disappeared, everyone would starve???
Think about it.


Of course they are going to sell it back for more. They have salaries of no producing management, transport, marketing, research, taxes, and investment to pay for.

Not to mention cushy stock options and bennefits.


Not one of those can they do without. And yes that includes investment which is not only vital but the most difficult to aquire which is why it gets the largest payoff. Because of its importance and its difficulty to replace.

Yes because the rich American deserves more than the starving African. After all, he has "investment", "investment" is "difficult to acquire".

You&#39;re missing the point, corporations make profit, after all expenses, after all costs, they make profit.
Where does the profit go?
The United States of America.
Why?
Exploitation.

THAT&#39;S THE POINT&#33;

[Hoppe]

Because the resources and labour is going to a corrupt government or a corrupt corporation. The resources are there, the jobs are there, you think that if the US disappeared, everyone would starve???
Think about it.

No, most children will probably end up in prostitution. Read the UN reports.

Read Hernando de Soto, third world countries are richer than we think. The problem is the lack of enforcable property rights so most is done in an informal economy. This causes an extreme corruption in local governments. Simply refusing Nike to go to a Third world country doesn&#39;t solve this problem and it&#39;s only enforcing your high moral standards on a country that clearly doesn&#39;t need it.

[LSD]

Read Hernando de Soto, third world countries are richer than we think.

Precisely
The physical resources are there, it&#39;s just a question of distribution.


The problem is the lack of enforcable property rights so most is done in an informal economy. This causes an extreme corruption in local governments.

I would disagree with this contention. Most American corporations, wherever they are, manage to enforce their "property rights" quite well.

Now you may be correct in that from within a capitalist society a lack of property rights for the average person leads to corruption and conflict. But that isn&#39;t neccessarily always true.


. Simply refusing Nike to go to a Third world country doesn&#39;t solve this problem and it&#39;s only enforcing your high moral standards on a country that clearly doesn&#39;t need it.

It certainly helps.

There is clearly more that needs to be dones, but removing the influences that are largely responsibly for the corruption and theft is definetly a start.

[Hoppe]

Precisely
The physical resources are there, it&#39;s just a question of distribution.

No. Most people own houses, a piece of land, a small business, but nothing is written down or registered. So it has nothing to do with distribution.


Now you may be correct in that from within a capitalist society a lack of property rights for the average person leads to corruption and conflict. But that isn&#39;t neccessarily always true.

Maybe in some utopian setting. There is a nice causal relationship between property rights and corruption, see the annual corruption index.


There is clearly more that needs to be dones, but removing the influences that are largely responsibly for the corruption and theft is definetly a start.

Whaat?? Are you proposing an intervention army of western countries to throw out corrupt regimes?

Or you could do as Kim Yong Il and brainwash all your citizens.......

[cubist]

i was talking to a friend of mine the other day,

he is a business man he sells factory goods from india to corps in europe. he travels to india and thailand at least bi-annually

he says that around the corners from the factories, the goods are sold at cut price but to huge profit of the person who stole the produce, you can get england umbro shirts for about a tenner and it apparently goes down as Waste in the factory.

[DEPAVER]

There are no "one size fits all" fixes for the woes of present-day capitalist and communist societies and the problems they experience. All communities and regions are different, and each must be free to solve their own problems within the confines of their regions.

However, one issue that does apply across the board is how economic systems affect all living things, and any system that doesn&#39;t account for how economic activity affects the environment, including non-human animals, is ultimately doomed.

As is evidenced in many Internet discussion lists, we have a tendency to view capitalism as the cause of environmental destruction and socialism or communism (non-capitalism) as the cure. Thus, "we must replace capitalism with socialism" and "Ta-Da&#33;" we have a sustainable, equitable society.

Sure, there are many undesirable aspects of capitalism. In many ways, it&#39;s inegalitarian and coercive, and yes, it rewards selfish behavior, but the core issue with capitalism is its mantra of growth at all costs. You simply can&#39;t grow infinitely in a world of finite resources.

Many adherents propose to "do away with capitalism," as if it were the paper liner on the bottom of the bird cage that can be tossed in the nearest tip. But there is no mechanism proposed, no means suggested for the transition from privately owned industry to common ownership in a moneyless society and no methodology for reducing consumption.

There is no understanding of imminent collapse of the economy based on artificially cheap fossil fuels, of agricultural based solely and totally on petroleum based fertilizer and oil driven irrigation from fossil water sources.

So, I don&#39;t see how any of the current "isms" offer a vision for a future beyond the oil economy, beyond the status quo. Socialism and communism seek to maintain present levels of consumption and in fact increase global consumption levels until all in the world live at the level of the developed countries. Some socialists fanaticize that robots, macro and nano, will do the work in some magical way that frees humans for a life of sloth. Who knows why.

The socialism and communism depicted in this discussion list is a fantasy with little if any relation to the world outside the computer box. It is a world clamped tightly between the covers of a first year economics text book, untouched but he light of knowledge. It is an indoor pastime, devoid of any appreciation of the complexity of life, human and non-human.

Could you think in terms of some middle way? An economy that supported the simple capitalism of the independent shop keeper, farmer and artisan, as well as socialistic enterprises such as employee owned enterprises and community cooperatives? Can we begin to think in terms of how economies and ALL enterprises affect the natural world?

There is no free lunch, folks. Mother nature always bats last.

[LSD]

Hoppe:


Maybe in some utopian setting. There is a nice causal relationship between property rights and corruption, see the annual corruption index.

Yes, under capitalism.

I entirely agree that without established property rights, capitalism leads to even more corruption than it otherwise would.


Whaat?? Are you proposing an intervention army of western countries to throw out corrupt regimes?

The point of this thread was to discuss what would be best for the third world.
I am saying that it would be best for the third world to remove these corrupt elements themselves.

No one mentioned anything about western intervention.
The only thing the west needs to do is pull out.


DEPRAVER:


So, I don&#39;t see how any of the current "isms" offer a vision for a future beyond the oil economy, beyond the status quo. Socialism and communism seek to maintain present levels of consumption and in fact increase global consumption levels until all in the world live at the level of the developed countries.

There may be some who propose that, but most know that it&#39;s impossible. But there are still more than enough resources for everyone to live comfortably, certainly enough that no one will starve.


There is no understanding of imminent collapse of the economy based on artificially cheap fossil fuels, of agricultural based solely and totally on petroleum based fertilizer and oil driven irrigation from fossil water sources.

There is indeed a strong understanding of those problems, but they are problems which will never be sovled under capitalism. It doesn&#39;t "pay".


The socialism and communism depicted in this discussion list is a fantasy with little if any relation to the world outside the computer box. It is a world clamped tightly between the covers of a first year economics text book, untouched but he light of knowledge. It is an indoor pastime, devoid of any appreciation of the complexity of life, human and non-human.

I would strongly disagree with that assertion. But as you&#39;ve provided no evidence to back it up, I have nothing to address.


But there is no mechanism proposed, no means suggested for the transition from privately owned industry to common ownership in a moneyless society and no methodology for reducing consumption.

Actually there are several. You should probably read up on some of them before assuming their absense.


Sure, there are many undesirable aspects of capitalism. In many ways, it&#39;s inegalitarian and coercive, and yes, it rewards selfish behavior, but the core issue with capitalism is its mantra of growth at all costs. You simply can&#39;t grow infinitely in a world of finite resources.

Inegalitarian, yes.
Coercive, yes.
Rewards selfish behavior, yes.
Assumes infinite growth, yes.

Seems like a pretty flawed system, no?


There are no "one size fits all" fixes for the woes of present-day capitalist and communist societies and the problems they experience. All communities and regions are different, and each must be free to solve their own problems within the confines of their regions.

Very true, but tell it to the neoliberalists.

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 2 2004, 11:04 PM



There is indeed a strong understanding of those problems, but they are problems which will never be sovled under capitalism. It doesn&#39;t "pay".

Where? Please point me to a single communist or socialist site that addresses the needs of all living things, not just the needs of man as part of its official position statement. It sure isn&#39;t on the WSM site.

I&#39;m just pointing out a flaw that can strengthen the message and make it stronger.



I would strongly disagree with that assertion. But as you&#39;ve provided no evidence to back it up, I have nothing to address.

The evidence is the lack of a workable plan that addresses the needs of humans and non-humans.



Actually there are several. You should probably read up on some of them before assuming their absense.

I&#39;ve studied this for years and have found none within the aforementioned platforms. There are plaforms that address such issues, but they are not being proposed by communists, socialists or most "so called" anarchists.
Peter Berg is addressing it at Planet Drum. I&#39;ve seen some great stuff at CultureChange.org.

And certainly not the capitalists&#33; I&#39;m sure we agree there.

So, the point that I&#39;m trying to make is while I agree with you wholeheartedly about capitalism, I have found nothing in current socialistic, communistic thought that addresses the needs of all living things.

We must begin to think biologically as well as logically, since we are the only living things on this planet, and all living things depend on one another.

There is no such thing as self-sufficiency.

[LSD]

Where? Please point me to a single communist or socialist site that addresses the needs of all living things, not just the needs of man as part of its official position statement. It sure isn&#39;t on the WSM site.

The evidence is the lack of a workable plan that addresses the needs of humans and non-humans.
So, the point that I&#39;m trying to make is while I agree with you wholeheartedly about capitalism, I have found nothing in current socialistic, communistic thought that addresses the needs of all living things.

We must begin to think biologically as well as logically, since we are the only living things on this planet, and all living things depend on one another.

Ok, I see where you&#39;re going.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 2 2004, 11:04 PM
Yes, under capitalism.

I entirely agree that without established property rights, capitalism leads to even more corruption than it otherwise would.

The point of this thread was to discuss what would be best for the third world.
I am saying that it would be best for the third world to remove these corrupt elements themselves.

No one mentioned anything about western intervention.
The only thing the west needs to do is pull out.



So we need to pull out, and let the people find a war in which they can kill eachother. Because that will be the result.


Yes, under capitalism.

Ah well, since nothing is written down you can hardly speak of capitalism. And in the favalas people don&#39;t seem to share everything with one another. Even in worse conditions they are still not instinctively tending to communism.

[LSD]

So we need to pull out, and let the people find a war in which they can kill eachother. Because that will be the result.

What, you think that Nike is all that stands between peace and war??
God help us.


Ah well, since nothing is written down you can hardly speak of capitalism.

I can indeed speak of it.
Capitalism doesn&#39;t require good records per say, just exchanges of capital and some sort of market. It may not be pure capitalism, but then what is?


And in the favalas people don&#39;t seem to share everything with one another. Even in worse conditions they are still not instinctively tending to communism.

The argument was never that communism is instinctive, just better for the people.