Cappies...why do you dimis communism

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

I wondered why cappies dimiss communism in the uk or us for example, is it because you do not see the bad results as many items are imported i.e many clothes, the people of china or india (workers)suffer????because iv writen a leaflet on this theory....il post it later so u can judge it!!

[Dimentio]

Liberals, conservatives, libertarians and some social democrats are generally fond of the market economy because they believe it is better in creating growth than the various forms of non-market economies. They also do believe that privately owned companies are the way the economy should be organised. Why they believe that could be viewed both from idealist and materialist perspectives.

[theraven]

i have sevearal quesiotns for you

1) do you think the workers in those places in India are reasonable human beings?

If you do, then move on to question 2, if not explain why not

2) if so, then do you beleive they may consent to work under these conditions because their lives previosu to this were even worse?

if you don't believe so then explain, if you do then move on

3) thus wouldn't it be logical to assume that even sweat shop workers are probably better off then what their parents were 30 years ago?

since I kno thats pretty much exactly what happened with my family bout 80 years ago I can tell you thats why I support capitlism. My great grandfather was a subsitance farmer adn teacher, his son saved up and went to america where he worked in a glass shop, other realitves worked in actual facotires, my grandfather ended up owning the glassshop and moving on up, my other raltives saved and sent thier kids to schools and worked hard, and here we are today. thats why captslist want to keep it going.

[BobKKKindle$]

Firstly, I dont know if this is the case in India, but in Britain when capitalism first began to develop, peasants were literally forced off their agricultural lands in order to make way for urbanisation and industrialisation, and those who owned workshops (The predecessors to manufacture) were likewise forced to abandon their independent economic position in favour of wage labour. The Urban centres where both peasants and petty-bourgeoisie were forced to move to were, by virtue of their absence of sanitation, much less desirable places to live than the countryside. Obviously this was coercive and did not involve a reasoned choice on the part of those concerned.

Secondly, if you support an economic system on the basis that it will improve the lives of workers in comparison with their past existence, then why would you be oppossed to Socialism? Under Socialism, workers would be in charge of their workplaces and have ownership over the goods that they produce. All basic needs would be fully met without any cost, in contrast to the insecurity and financial hardship that arises under Capitalism. Production would not be subject to the same periodic crises that occur under Capitalism.

Capitalists dismiss communism, and encourage others to do so through their control of the means of communication, because it would not be in their interests for a classless society to emerge, because the Capitalists enjoy great wealth through the class division that arises from their ownership of the means of production. The Capitalists are no doubt aware of the exploitation of workers in other countries, and choose to exploit these workers because they are willing to sell their labour at a lower price, consequently ensuring greater profit for the capitalist.

[ShakeZula06]

when capitalism first began to develop, peasants were literally forced off their agricultural lands in order to make way for urbanisation and industrialisation, and those who owned workshops (The predecessors to manufacture) were likewise forced to abandon their independent economic position in favour of wage labour. The Urban centres where both peasants and petty-bourgeoisie were forced to move to were, by virtue of their absence of sanitation, much less desirable places to live than the countryside. Obviously this was coercive and did not involve a reasoned choice on the part of those concerned.
Obviously this is a bad thing. But it's a bad thing caused by the state, not capitalism.

if you support an economic system on the basis that it will improve the lives of workers in comparison with their past existence, then why would you be oppossed to Socialism?
Because history, theory, and logic all show that the poor will have a higher absolute wealth under capitalism then in socialism.

Production would not be subject to the same periodic crises that occur under Capitalism.
These periodic crises occur because of the state's monopoly on the money supply. I'll take the invisible hand of the free market over centrally planned bureauracys anyday of the week. The free market correctly matches the market's demand in the most effecient manner, while a centrally planned economy has no means of assessing demand.

[BobKKKindle$]

Obviously this is a bad thing. But it's a bad thing caused by the state, not capitalism

The State is a political manifestation of the economic power of the bourgeoisie that arises from class division. Capitalism cannot exist without a state; the state is the device through which the Bourgeoisie oppresses the workers. Throughout history whenever there has been a direct confrontation between the workers and capital, the state has always supported the Capitalists through the use of armed force.

Because history, theory, and logic all show that the poor will have a higher absolute wealth under capitalism then in socialism.

I beg to differ. The introduction of Capitalism into the former Soviet states and the consequent reduction in government expenditure has left many people without access to important goods and services; Cuba, despite being subjected to an American Economic embargo for 50 years, still provides a standard of living and security unavaliable to developing countries operating under Capitalism. The introduction of radical free market economics into Chile following the assasination of the democratically elected leader Salvador Allende resulted in increases in poverty and unemployment never before witnessed. And in developed countries normally associated with propserity under Capitalism, real wages (purchasing power, adjusted for inflation) have stagnated for workers in lower income groups.

A google search will support what I said.

Therefore what you said is nonsense.


These periodic crises occur because of the state's monopoly on the money supply

So you believe that a range of institutions should be able to manage the money supply. Care to elaborate?


The free market correctly matches the market's demand in the most effecient manner, while a centrally planned economy has no means of assessing demand.

Under the free market, Capitalists produce goods that will return the greatest profit on their investement. There is a difference between goods that are highly profitable and commodites that satisfy people's needs, just as there is a difference between effective demand (being able and willing to pay for a commodity) and a human need. Given the vastly unequal distribution of income that occurs under Capitalism, the goods that the market produces do not reflect people's wants and needs, but rather the desies of a privelaged rich minority.

Do not assume that Socialists advocate a Planned Economy. You will find that most advocate a system of consumer's councils whereby people democratically 'signal' (not unlike price signals) the goods they want.

[ShakeZula06]

Capitalism cannot exist without a state;
Why?

the state is the device through which the Bourgeoisie oppresses the workers. Throughout history whenever there has been a direct confrontation between the workers and capital, the state has always supported the Capitalists through the use of armed force.
Sounds like a good reason to elimiate the state.

I beg to differ. The introduction of Capitalism into the former Soviet states and the consequent reduction in government expenditure has left many people without access to important goods and services
They didn't have these before while under whatever rule you say they had before (i know you guys hate it when we call the USSR socialist). In fact, they were dirt poor. And what is occuring in Russia is NOT capitalism. Putin rules Russia with an iron fist, giving the state control and rolling back civil liberties wherever possible.

Cuba, despite being subjected to an American Economic embargo for 50 years, still provides a standard of living and security unavaliable to developing countries operating under Capitalism.
Gonna need to see proof of this.

The introduction of radical free market economics into Chile following the assasination of the democratically elected leader Salvador Allende resulted in increases in poverty and unemployment never before witnessed.
This too.

And in developed countries normally associated with propserity under Capitalism, real wages (purchasing power, adjusted for inflation) have stagnated for workers in lower income groups.
And this.

A google search will support what I said.
Burden of proof's on you.

Therefore what you said is nonsense.
Of course, assert, assert, assert, and all I've said is nonsense. You don't need say, arguments, or proof to back up what you're saying at all.

So you believe that a range of institutions should be able to manage the money supply. Care to elaborate?
Part of the problem is that the money has no intrinsic value since it's not backed by anything. Throughout history currency has always been something of value (gold, silver, etc) and now it's nothing. I don't think any institution should manage the money supply. Why is one needed?

There is a difference between goods that are highly profitable and commodites that satisfy people's needs,
There's differences yes, but very often they are the same.

Given the vastly unequal distribution of income that occurs under Capitalism,
Stop right there. most of the unequal distribution we see under 'capitalism' (read: mixed economy) is the result of favoritism from the state in the form of no bid contracts, government intervention in unions, government regulation, and territorial monopolies such as cable handed out by the government. As many of the socialists here know, the state is a tool of the rich, and they use it to enhance their power to the detriment of others, which creates this inequality.

the goods that the market produces do not reflect people's wants and needs, but rather the desies of a privelaged rich minority.
Wrong. Point and case: Wal-mart and McDonalds.

Do not assume that Socialists advocate a Planned Economy. You will find that most advocate a system of consumer's councils whereby people democratically 'signal' (not unlike price signals) the goods they want.
How's that not a planned economy?

[Dimentio]

By that definition, all economies would be planned.

But there are more efficient non-capitalist economic systems than council socialism. One example is energy accounting.

[BobKKKindle$]

You asked for proof of the multiple case studies I noted:

Chile:

http://www.knowprose.com/node/16855

Cuba:

http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/cou...cty_fs_CUB.html (http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_CUB.html) (note this is not the Cuba truth project)

Look at those stats....

Ussr:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_th...%281985-1991%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Soviet_Union_%281985-1991%29)


Since the USSR's collapse, Russia has been facing many problems that the free market proponents in 1992 did not expect: among other things, 25% of the population now lives below the poverty line, life expectancy has dropped, birthrates are low, and the GDP has plunged by half.

Wages:

http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economis..._usa/index.html (http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/economy_usa/index.html)

(look under 'Middle America Missing out')



Part of the problem is that the money has no intrinsic value since it's not backed by anything. Throughout history currency has always been something of value (gold, silver, etc) and now it's nothing. I don't think any institution should manage the money supply. Why is one needed?

So whom exactly would issue new coins and notes, manage interest rates, or control the amount of credit that is avaliable to borrow? Whom would control the rate of increase in the money supply?

[ShakeZula06]

Thanks for the links. I'm heading to bed soon so I'll read over the links and get back to you on it tomorrow.

So whom exactly would issue new coins and notes,
Anyone interested in creating a currency.

manage interest rates,
Why do interest rates need to be managed?

or control the amount of credit that is avaliable to borrow?
Why does it need to be controlled?

Whom would control the rate of increase in the money supply?
Whoever creates the currency.

If you'd like a thread from another forum over this topic, here's (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8546755&an=0&page=1#Post8546755) a thread from my home forum over it. If you don't pick up on it, AC stands for AnarchoCapitalism.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 12:03 am
i have sevearal quesiotns for you

1) do you think the workers in those places in India are reasonable human beings?

If you do, then move on to question 2, if not explain why not

2) if so, then do you beleive they may consent to work under these conditions because their lives previosu to this were even worse?

if you don't believe so then explain, if you do then move on

3) thus wouldn't it be logical to assume that even sweat shop workers are probably better off then what their parents were 30 years ago?

since I kno thats pretty much exactly what happened with my family bout 80 years ago I can tell you thats why I support capitlism. My great grandfather was a subsitance farmer adn teacher, his son saved up and went to america where he worked in a glass shop, other realitves worked in actual facotires, my grandfather ended up owning the glassshop and moving on up, my other raltives saved and sent thier kids to schools and worked hard, and here we are today. thats why captslist want to keep it going.
3)I have no doubt that they ae better off now but this is all irrelivant....the truth is they are being exploited, and company owners are making money out of this.

And for ur family you were lucky, but others are not.

[ComradeR]

Anyone interested in creating a currency.
Wow that's brilliant, anyone who wants to create a currency can free of state regulation. But wait, wouldn't that cause capitalism to collapse? The answer is of course yes, because capitalism is completely dependent on wage labor (where the workers must sell their labor to the Bourgeoisie for currency) but if every person can just create currency free from Bourgeois control then the entire system would breakdown. Also i might add that because capitalism requires Bourgeois control over the means of production is the reason that capitalism requires a state run by the Bourgeoisie in order to maintain that control.

[ShakeZula06]

Chile:
I don't care for dictators. A free market can only be successful in a society that wants it. Chile is also fairly poor and suffers from having very high Time preferences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Preference).

Cuba:
This link really doesn't tell me much. This HDI and HPI, while interesting doesn't seem near as important as other measurements (for instance while literacy rate is imporant putting in as a top three measurement is just odd). Also remember the claim was that it is better off then many growing capitalist nations, and the link doesn't touch on this.

Ussr:
Counter article: Russia's March from Communism (http://www.mises.org/story/1046)

Basic Jist is that Capitalism in any form is new to Russia, who has went multiple generations without property rights. Let's also not forget that the only reason Russia is attempting capitalism is because of the failures of socialism.

Also, let's remember that Russia still has substancial intervention from it's government. Asserting that Russia is a free market would be the same as calling healthcare in America a free market. It is a market and not completely subject to government control, but it is highly regulated and it is held back.

Wages:

http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economis..._usa/index.html

(look under 'Middle America Missing out')
Huge link, can you just quote the Middle America missing out part?

[ShakeZula06]

I have no doubt that they ae better off now but this is all irrelivant
How the hell can the fact that they are better off be irrelevent? What other goal could there be but to improve your well being?

the truth is they are being exploited
Define how you are using exploited.

[ShakeZula06]

lol, did you even think before making this post?

if every person can just create currency free from Bourgeois control then the entire system would breakdown.
Try to remember what the point of currency is. Do you know? It was created as a medium of exchange. It was created by the market. If I just started printing paper and made "Shake dollars", what value would they have?

Go back to the link I gave. Here's the very first reply-

Money predates the state and its monopolization of it. Money is a market phenomenon; real money, i.e. commodity money, is simply a commodity, like any other. The traditional commodity money that defeated all comers was gold.

See, for example, this post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=politics&Number=5469068&Searchpage=1&Main=5469068&Words=%2BOn+%2BCapitalism+-Re+Borodog&topic=&Search=true#Post5469068):

A money is a market commodity who some smart fellow realizes is more easily exchanged than what he has produced. If he can exchange his goods for this more readily exchanged good, the value of his own goods and his ability to get what he wants have both gone up. There is a snowball effect in the market, and a few commodities will rapidly become moneys, and will [attain] value as a medium of exchange (in addition to whatever uses they already served in the market). Market moneys compete against each other, and ultimately there are usually only one or two. Historically there have been many moneys, including salt, sugar, seashells, tin, etc. but ultimately gold won out (with a few places still using silver) in the 19th century. The reasons that gold makes a good money is that it is durable, easily divisible, hard to counterfeit, and has a high value to weight ratio.

A money elliminates the problem of double coincidences of wants. It also elliminates the problem of incomensurable units, almost magically. Potential consumers of goods will bid against each other in units of the money (ounces of gold, for example) and will generate market prices for all goods and resources. This creates a single unit that all goods can be measured in to establish the costs of production, as well as the revenues that can be earned from sales. This allows the entrepreneur to engage in cost accounting. Cost accounting is a miracle of the market. It allows producers to determine, in a single unit, exactly how much production will cost them, exactly how much they can generate in sales. The latter minus the former will either be a profit or a loss.


because capitalism is completely dependent on wage labor
Why? Capitalism isn't the antithesis of living off your land, working in a co-op, or working on commission.

Also i might add that because capitalism requires Bourgeois control over the means of production....
This sentance really doesn't make sense. Anyone that owns property is part of the bourgeois so by default the bourgeois will always control some (remember, labor is part of the means of production) of the means of production.

....is the reason that capitalism requires a state run by the Bourgeoisie in order to maintain that control.
Why is the state needed to maintain that control?

[ShakeZula06]

By that definition, all economies would be planned.
I didn't give a defintion. However I did say that a economy that is based on 'signaling' (I assume this is voting?) of people to the rulers of the territorial monopoly of what to produce IS planned (actually I said how is it not, but you get the point). A free market is not a planned economy.

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 11:07 pm
Liberals, conservatives, libertarians and some social democrats are generally fond of the market economy because they believe it is better in creating growth than the various forms of non-market economies. They also do believe that privately owned companies are the way the economy should be organised. Why they believe that could be viewed both from idealist and materialist perspectives.
Of course we are fond of the free market economy, b/c it and it alone is wholly responsible for creating wealth and prosperity.

Communism/Socialism is simply a tool of coercion to "re-distribute" (ie- steal) from one group to give to another. It depends on the wealth creators (free-marketeers) to accrue wealth and, at w/ the barrel of a gun forces them to give up some of it.

Communism/Socialism is based on theft; therefore, it is immoral.

And please, before anyone comes back w/ "well, look at the poor people in the free market - look at how the worker is enslaved". Well, for one thing, any true free-marketeer knows that the free market does not guarantee any level of wealth, it simply allows you to reap what you sow. Yes, there are people who want to take advantage of others and who want to hurt, but I think most people in the world aren't this dishonest. Also, as a worker myself in a relatively free-market (I'm Canadian, so we are quite riddled w/ Socialism) I am quite happy w/ my wage - and of course my boss makes more than me, (he has much more responsibility and personal risk, as he's the business owner). He, therefore, should make more money than me. I am there out of my choice, and I love what I do, therefore (like most in society) I'm not enslaved.

Furthermore, Socialism/Communism dishonestly states it can guarantee the same standard of living for everyone. Not only is that impossible, b/c it destroys your work ethic (ie- if I get the same as my lazy-ass neighbour, where's my incentive to work?), but it's also impracticle b/c not everyone even wants the same things out of life. Some are happy w/ living in a small 1bdr apt., while others desire more extravagant lifestyles. I suppose, it might be possible it could guarantee the same level of poverty for everyone, thanks to its inherent ability to kill individual thought and motivation.

Communists/Socialists main point of defense or promotion is a completely emotionally-based one. They push things like how the evil Capitalists are all out to get you, that, for example, if we don't force them to pay their workers X amount of dollars, then they will only get pennies. It's such a laughably, ignorant comment w/ no basis.
Guess what? Most industries pay well above min. wage b/c they know that most doctors, lawyers, and even truck drivers are worth well above this amount. And guess what Commies, it's not even the boss that has the final say on a worker's wages, it's me, you, and anyone else who buys their product or service. (I'm sure most Commies would cry that today's VCR producers should get X amount of dollars. However, they should only get what the market demands, and right now that is, or at least approaching, nothing. Whereas cell phone producers/workers are in relatively high demand and thus make an accordingly higher wage).

Bottom line: workers should only ever get whatever the market (ie- me and you) are willing to pay, period. It's the only practical and truely fair manner. Would you like to be forced to pay 20 dollars for a loaf of bread just b/c some centralized authority decides bakers need more money?? Of course not.

Let's talk about history for a moment. Commies always cry, "well there's never been any true example of communism in our world, b/c any country even approaching it always has a centralized gov't". Yes, exactly, they have and will continue to do so. It's no coincidence that countries like China, Cuba, S. Korea etc. have a gov't that devolved into a horribly tyrranical and oppressive nature. They've been that way for decades. Their "leaders" (ie- dictators) love this power they have over every facet of it's citizens' lives that it just feeds their unquenchable thirst for power. They will never, ever give it up.

So, based on the Commies' emotionally-based and historically brutal displays, that is why I am totally dismissing Communism.

Now, if you and a number of your like-minded friends can agree to go and start your own commune... well, it might, possibly work. However, even in that case, unless you're all robots, you're all going to have different wants and will never be fully satisfied.

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 08:00 am

These periodic crises occur because of the state's monopoly on the money supply. I'll take the invisible hand of the free market over centrally planned bureauracys anyday of the week. The free market correctly matches the market's demand in the most effecient manner, while a centrally planned economy has no means of assessing demand.


Exactly.

Socialists/Commies don't realize that it's market demand that should determine what is to be produced and for what wage, instead of some centralized group which never is able to determine such needs.

It's a total fallacy.

[BobKKKindle$]

Communism/Socialism is simply a tool of coercion to "re-distribute" (ie- steal) from one group to give to another. It depends on the wealth creators (free-marketeers) to accrue wealth and, at w/ the barrel of a gun forces them to give up some of it.

So what are you saying, that one has to have an environment of private enterprises and freely moving prices for the economy to expand and goods and services to be produced? This is absurd; when capital is forcibly concentrated in the hands of the state, countries have undergone economic development far greater than under the free market, because one is not required to wait until capital is sufficiently concentrated for development to occur. The most obvious examples of this (also known as central planning...) are the USSR and North Korea. The former went from being a largely agrarian society to the most powerful industrial power in the world. Without the free market.

Even South Korea, so often cited as an example, in Comparison to the North, as a shining example of the market, industrialised through a system of national plans and government ownership!


Furthermore, Socialism/Communism dishonestly states it can guarantee the same standard of living for everyone. Not only is that impossible, b/c it destroys your work ethic (ie- if I get the same as my lazy-ass neighbour, where's my incentive to work?),

Firstly, note that the distribution of commodities under Communism will be dictated by the principle of 'each according to his needs, each according to his abilities' which does in no way suggest the 'same' for everyone. Obviously everyone would be provided with certain basic amenities (e.g. A Basic standard of Nutrition).

Secondly, just because under Capitalism, Humans genreally refuse to work unless there is no material incentive to do so, does not mean that humans are universally lazy. Under Capitalism, labour is primarily a means unto an end, it is a commodity traded between the Capitalist and Worker so the worker can purchase commodities. Revolutionary Leftists, through Marx's concept of Alienation (Alienation is the process wherbey we become seperated from and lose control over the world in which we live) percieve this to be wrong, and belive that labour should be a fulfilling and enjoyable exprience that is an end unto itself, not an activity that stands apart from our lives as something we do because we are forced to.

The primary reason why this is not the case under Capitalist Societies is that workers do not have ownership over the commodities that they produce - rather, the products of the worker's labour confront the worker as something seperate from him. This is intensified by the fact that in developed Capitalist Societies, much labour is expended on producing superfluous and meaningless goods. It should also be noted that workers do not have control over the places in which they work and the the economic system confronts people as a whole as something that is out of their control and governed by forces un-connected with human actions and decisions.

It should be obvious that in a state of non-alienation, an egalitarian pay system could work, and welfare abuse that is prominent in Capitalist Societies would not be an issue.

This might be of interest (for everyone)

http://www.thetake.org/

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1812


Communism/Socialism is based on theft; therefore, it is immoral

We have another word : Expropriation Workers taking back the woders of industry and technology that they created from the capitalists who took the efforts of the workers from them through an unfair system of private property with the support of the state.

[encephalon]

The invisible hand is an iron fist to workers. We don't have a choice. It's lovely that you do.. but you may better spend your time preaching to other self-interested petite bourgeoisie ideology peddlers rather than invoke your holy capitalism here.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 12:03 am
If you do, then move on to question 2, if not explain why not

2) if so, then do you beleive they may consent to work under these conditions because their lives previosu to this were even worse?

if you don't believe so then explain, if you do then move on

3) thus wouldn't it be logical to assume that even sweat shop workers are probably better off then what their parents were 30 years ago?

since I kno thats pretty much exactly what happened with my family bout 80 years ago I can tell you thats why I support capitlism. My great grandfather was a subsitance farmer adn teacher, his son saved up and went to america where he worked in a glass shop, other realitves worked in actual facotires, my grandfather ended up owning the glassshop and moving on up, my other raltives saved and sent thier kids to schools and worked hard, and here we are today. thats why captslist want to keep it going.

1) do you think the workers in those places in India are reasonable human beings?

The Bourgeiosie denies them reason through no education (the same as any other capitalist country, only in the west, workers are "educated to the bourgeiosie's advantage)



If you do, then move on to question 2, if not explain why not

2) if so, then do you beleive they may consent to work under these conditions because their lives previosu to this were even worse?

Because it is a choice between unfair working conditions that almost feed you, and not working and starving


3) thus wouldn't it be logical to assume that even sweat shop workers are probably better off then what their parents were 30 years ago?

How much better off. You can't say "I'm slightly less starving than my grandad; and instead of working 18 hours a day i work 16; and my 15' square dwelling's better than his 10' square one."


since I kno thats pretty much exactly what happened with my family bout 80 years ago I can tell you thats why I support capitlism. My great grandfather was a subsitance farmer adn teacher, his son saved up and went to america where he worked in a glass shop, other realitves worked in actual facotires, my grandfather ended up owning the glassshop and moving on up, my other raltives saved and sent thier kids to schools and worked hard, and here we are today. thats why captslist want to keep it going.

What about the fact that liberal reforms have only benefitted very few people thus.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 08:58 am
And what is occuring in Russia is NOT capitalism. Putin rules Russia with an iron fist, giving the state control and rolling back civil liberties wherever possible.

Sounds like capitalism to me. Ya see, capitalism relies upon a Utilitarian basis: all goods are maximised to the highest possible level. Distribution does not matter. Neither does liberty or autonomy. It will only allow the freedoms that does not interfere with the maximisation; therefore the bourgeiosie make an excuse for their absolutism: it is "necessary".
Capitalism has been around for around 200 years and has always been authoritarian. What you're advocating is regurgitations of Nozick which in themselves are regurgitations of Locke.

[pandora]

The problem is too many cappies and even others associate Communism only with authoritarianism. Ultimately Communism would move beyond state control.
I have become concerned with corruption and how elites try to position themselves at the top of state enterprises as compromising equality and reintroducing class distinctions.

It would be interesting to think how true communication and dialogue would happen among the Vanguard party if that was the route taken.

Capitalism or Consumerism, is based on mass consumption, in order to in force maximum distribution many systems human and environmental are compromised for control and speed.

For a little less consumption and more time, goods and services could be produced locally and more sustainably. I would endorse a form of Communism that promoted localism or local economies and production to lessen fuel consumption.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Political_Punk+January 01, 2007 10:24 pm--> (Political_Punk @ January 01, 2007 10:24 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2006 08:00 am

These periodic crises occur because of the state's monopoly on the money supply. I'll take the invisible hand of the free market over centrally planned bureauracys anyday of the week. The free market correctly matches the market's demand in the most effecient manner, while a centrally planned economy has no means of assessing demand.


Exactly.

Socialists/Commies don't realize that it's market demand that should determine what is to be produced and for what wage, instead of some centralized group which never is able to determine such needs.

It's a total fallacy. [/b]
No it it's not a fallacy.

You're working from something I'd identify as a fallacy - you're defending a system that currently exists on the basis of what it *should* be, not what it *is*.

Market demand is often manipulated by the plutocratic oligarchy of capitalism in order that they can make more money off whatever product they're pushing.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:21 am

Firstly, note that the distribution of commodities under Communism will be dictated by the principle of 'each according to his needs, each according to his abilities' which does in no way suggest the 'same' for everyone. Obviously everyone would be provided with certain basic amenities (e.g. A Basic standard of Nutrition).


So how would this function?
An amount of credit fpr every one to get what they need?

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:21 am

Communism/Socialism is simply a tool of coercion to "re-distribute" (ie- steal) from one group to give to another. It depends on the wealth creators (free-marketeers) to accrue wealth and, at w/ the barrel of a gun forces them to give up some of it.

So what are you saying, that one has to have an environment of private enterprises and freely moving prices for the economy to expand and goods and services to be produced? This is absurd; when capital is forcibly concentrated in the hands of the state, countries have undergone economic development far greater than under the free market, because one is not required to wait until capital is sufficiently concentrated for development to occur. The most obvious examples of this (also known as central planning...) are the USSR and North Korea. The former went from being a largely agrarian society to the most powerful industrial power in the world. Without the free market.


Even South Korea, so often cited as an example, in Comparison to the North, as a shining example of the market, industrialised through a system of national plans and government ownership!


Furthermore, Socialism/Communism dishonestly states it can guarantee the same standard of living for everyone. Not only is that impossible, b/c it destroys your work ethic (ie- if I get the same as my lazy-ass neighbour, where's my incentive to work?),

Firstly, note that the distribution of commodities under Communism will be dictated by the principle of 'each according to his needs, each according to his abilities' which does in no way suggest the 'same' for everyone. Obviously everyone would be provided with certain basic amenities (e.g. A Basic standard of Nutrition).

Secondly, just because under Capitalism, Humans genreally refuse to work unless there is no material incentive to do so, does not mean that humans are universally lazy. Under Capitalism, labour is primarily a means unto an end, it is a commodity traded between the Capitalist and Worker so the worker can purchase commodities. Revolutionary Leftists, through Marx's concept of Alienation (Alienation is the process wherbey we become seperated from and lose control over the world in which we live) percieve this to be wrong, and belive that labour should be a fulfilling and enjoyable exprience that is an end unto itself, not an activity that stands apart from our lives as something we do because we are forced to.

The primary reason why this is not the case under Capitalist Societies is that workers do not have ownership over the commodities that they produce - rather, the products of the worker's labour confront the worker as something seperate from him. This is intensified by the fact that in developed Capitalist Societies, much labour is expended on producing superfluous and meaningless goods. It should also be noted that workers do not have control over the places in which they work and the the economic system confronts people as a whole as something that is out of their control and governed by forces un-connected with human actions and decisions.

It should be obvious that in a state of non-alienation, an egalitarian pay system could work, and welfare abuse that is prominent in Capitalist Societies would not be an issue.

This might be of interest (for everyone)

http://www.thetake.org/

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1812


Communism/Socialism is based on theft; therefore, it is immoral

We have another word : Expropriation Workers taking back the woders of industry and technology that they created from the capitalists who took the efforts of the workers from them through an unfair system of private property with the support of the state.


So what are you saying, that one has to have an environment of private enterprises and freely moving prices for the economy to expand and goods and services to be produced?


Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying!! Allow the market to expand naturally and NON-forcibly. If people like widgets over trinkets, then, I'm sorry the trinket producers and workers will either take a pay cut or be out of a job, period.
Under Communism, you will have a centralized authority that will say 'sorry, we don't care what the market (ie- the consumer) says, it's just not fair - all trinket producers must also be employed or get X amount of dollars'
Why?? Why should anyone get any more than what people are willing to pay? Just b/c you think they should? What gives you (or anyone) the right to decide how much someone should get? It's so ironic, Commies think 'there won't be a state, but everone will still get 'from each according to their ability to each according to his need'. Just how are you going to organize, distribute and decide all of this without some sort of board of centralized authority? You can't. And again, look at any country that is even approaching your false utopia of true Communism. They are horribly, horribly oppressive, and totalitarian. The rulers are rich beyond belief, and the common person is totally impoverished.


This is absurd; when capital is forcibly concentrated in the hands of the state, countries have undergone economic development far greater than under the free market, because one is not required to wait until capital is sufficiently concentrated for development to occur. The most obvious examples of this (also known as central planning...) are the USSR and North Korea. The former went from being a largely agrarian society to the most powerful industrial power in the world. Without the free market.


Absurd? Excuse me, (and thank you for admitting Communism's innate principle) but FORCE is not only absurd but simply wrong. How dare someone rob me at gunpoint in a back alley b/c they think I shouldn't have this much money. (and, I'm by no means rich, I am a student barely scratching by in school). Likewise, how dare the gov't force me to give up some amount of my money (steal) b/c they think they know what's good for me or what's good for my neighbour. It's disgusting, condescending and again, simply wrong. Communism is akin to a nanny state. "We know what's best for you, now open your wallet or be thrown in jail". Force against innocents is wrong. Violence against innocents is wrong. Communism is wrong.

Whoa, what? Did you say North Korea and USSR??? Um, have you seen the standard of living in the places??? Do you you know how oppressive and horrible it is to live there?
It's the free market that allows you to make as almost as much as you want. If you're happy w/ 6 bucks an hour, go work at McDonald's - if you want more, go to school then find a better job, start your own business, invest, etc. etc. Under capitalism you have the choice to do what you want, you don't have an elite group telling you what they think is best for you or someone else. You are your own boss. Personally, I like having the freedom to succeed and fail and not being treated like a child.

Bottom line: Communism is based on violence, like you said, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". That all sounds so lovely and romantic, but remember, to get that from one to another it's the barrel of the gun that is doing the giving. Commies are dishonest b/c they promise a utopian world, where everyone will be taken care of, but that's simply dishonest. Where are you going to get the goods and services to make sure everyone is looked after? You need someone to produce things and make money. (ie- you need a free market) Communism only steals wealth, while Capitalism creates it. And as much as you think otherwise; profit is the bottom-line motivator.
Now, charities are another issue. Forcing someone to give to give someone else is not charitable, it's simply theft. Personally, I sponsor a child. It's not bragging, I did it out of my own free will (charity). I'm not special, but given how you can literally save a life for such a little money, why wouldn't you?

Anyway, I'm digressing.

Capitalism (which does not exist anywhere on this planet, however the western world has the closest examples) allows you to make as much or as little as you want, and it offers NO guarantees only the freedom to decide on your own. It's honest, it doesn't promise a utopia. It makes no guarantees. It only promises that if you work hard, you will most likely get what you want.

Now as for greedy and dishonest businessmen, well, that's human nature. There will always be dishonesty. But should I even go off on the horrible, horrible conditions in every country that's even approaching Communism? I don't think I need too. *cough* Cuba, N. Korea, the former USSR *cough*

Listen, all I want is the freedom to pursue my own career, to make as much as I can, and leave other people's property and belongings alone. I don't like robbing or being robbed. I want to decide what's best for me, b/c I know what's best for me; not the gov't, not some commune leader, not anyone else, period. I like freedom. That is why I want a free-market.

In the end, if people want to go and start their own commune, by all means. It's your choice, but just keep your distance don't try and force me or others who do not agree w/ you to do so.

[ShakeZula06]

The Bourgeiosie denies them reason through no education
Since when are they obligated to provide them with education? You collectivists and your blame games, I swear.

Because it is a choice between unfair working conditions that almost feed you, and not working and starving

Your point? If you want to help them you do it, don't ***** and moan about the people that actually are helping them out some.

How much better off. You can't say "I'm slightly less starving than my grandad; and instead of working 18 hours a day i work 16; and my 15' square dwelling's better than his 10' square one."

Who are you to say how much better off they are and should be? How much better off is sufficient? Emotional rhetoric from a collectivist, I would have never dreamed of it.

[ShakeZula06]

And what is occuring in Russia is NOT capitalism. Putin rules Russia with an iron fist, giving the state control and rolling back civil liberties wherever possible.
Sounds like capitalism to me.
Thanks for letting me know your opinion mean nothing now. At least until you study econ 101.

[ShakeZula06]

you're defending a system that currently exists on the basis of what it *should* be, not what it *is*.
lol, are you trying to say I support the status quo? Considering I'm an anarchist, excuse me for not taking your opinion serious at all.

Market demand is often manipulated by the plutocratic oligarchy of the state
fixed your post.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RedStarOverYorkshire+January 02, 2007 01:39 pm--> (RedStarOverYorkshire @ January 02, 2007 01:39 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2006 08:58 am
And what is occuring in Russia is NOT capitalism. Putin rules Russia with an iron fist, giving the state control and rolling back civil liberties wherever possible.

Sounds like capitalism to me. Ya see, capitalism relies upon a Utilitarian basis: all goods are maximised to the highest possible level. Distribution does not matter. Neither does liberty or autonomy. It will only allow the freedoms that does not interfere with the maximisation; therefore the bourgeiosie make an excuse for their absolutism: it is "necessary".
Capitalism has been around for around 200 years and has always been authoritarian. What you're advocating is regurgitations of Nozick which in themselves are regurgitations of Locke. [/b]

It is highly amusing to conceive of capitalists producing goods and services, and then not caring how they are distributed.
How do you suppose, then, capitalists make money?
Distribution does not factor into capitalist thinking, becuae there is no issue of it; Items are produced because there is a need for them. The distribution already exists. It is socialism which has the difficulty of distribution, because its production is not merely calculated to seve the needs of the consumers, but rather those of the producers.

It is further amusing to suppose an economy, who supporters praise, and which is designed, to utilise materials in production in a less than EFFICIENT manner than possible, as possibly being a stronger and better system which provides for people their needs and wants.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:21 pm
[QUOTE]
The primary reason why this is not the case under Capitalist Societies is that workers do not have ownership over the commodities that they produce - rather, the products of the worker's labour confront the worker as something seperate from him. This is intensified by the fact that in developed Capitalist Societies, much labour is expended on producing superfluous and meaningless goods. It should also be noted that workers do not have control over the places in which they work and the the economic system confronts people as a whole as something that is out of their control and governed by forces un-connected with human actions and decisions.



Why would one suppose that "alienation" from labor would end once the worker owns the means of production? What exactly would the worker "control"

It strikes me that one of the issues with socilaism is that they analyse capitalism incorrectly. They assume that the capitalist controls all, that they make the decisions and call the shots, for their own best interest. Socilaists propose to replace that environment with that of the workers controlling all. The debates between various socialist sects are over the best way to do this.

But it should be obvious to all that the capitalist cannot make a dime without satisfying peoples needs and wants. People have to buy what the capitalist produces, else he goes bankrupt. Oftentime socialists will agree with this, but then say that the capitalist will manipulate the market, make people believe they want things they don't ereally want or need, ect (which is a strange crticism coming from socialiss, given that their program DEPENDS upon an assumption that humans are basically smart and intelligent and are able to nmake wise decisions). But the socialist will still insist that the workers should be making the decisions on production matters. But those decisions are, in a rational economy, going to have to be made with satisfying the needs and wants of the people. The worker and consumer are simply not the same person. Given that inherent clash, how will "alienation" end? The worker will either produce what he wishes to produce, and damm the consumer, or he will have to respond to what the consumer wishes, thereby losing control of the productive proccesses, since those processes will have to be geared to satisfying what the consumer wants.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 09:59 am


How much better off. You can't say "I'm slightly less starving than my grandad; and instead of working 18 hours a day i work 16; and my 15' square dwelling's better than his 10' square one."

Who are you to say how much better off they are and should be? How much better off is sufficient? Emotional rhetoric from a collectivist, I would have never dreamed of it.

The Bourgeiosie denies them reason through no education

Since when are they obligated to provide them with education? You collectivists and your blame games, I swear.

Because your neo-liberal views are incompatible with everyone being able to enjoy those freedoms. These liberal rights seem to be only compatible with the rich, or only they will enjoy them. These doctrines were tried out in England in the nineteenth century, and given all the reform that's happened, I think it's fair to say it empirically doesn't work. Even Mill thought that Universal education was necessary. And it's obliged, by the way.


Because it is a choice between unfair working conditions that almost feed you, and not working and starving


Your point? If you want to help them you do it, don't ***** and moan about the people that actually are helping them out some.

The great fault in libertarianism is this: you have an inalienable right to self-ownership, but you are forced to sell yourself for at least a third of your day, and given the lack of restrictions, the bosses would really start to milk it with working hours.
May I ask you two questions: 1) Do you condone prostitution; and 2) If no, how do you reconcile it with your political doctrine?
And who is helping them out "some" (questionable grammar)?



How much better off. You can't say "I'm slightly less starving than my grandad; and instead of working 18 hours a day i work 16; and my 15' square dwelling's better than his 10' square one."


Who are you to say how much better off they are and should be? How much better off is sufficient? Emotional rhetoric from a collectivist, I would have never dreamed of it.

But do sweatshop workers actually have enough?

[Dimentio]

Why not strive to end work?