Communist-capitalist

[lindagarrette]

Yes indeed C1ay; The communistic system redistributes all the wealth, but gives people no reason to produce it. In the final analysis, when there is nothing left to comsume, the system fails.

Not so. In a communist system, there is no wealth, per se. Each person contributes to the community according to individual capabilities. There is no money exchanged nor assets owned other than what is needed for personal use. All basic needs are met, such as food, housing, clothing, medical care, and education. Status is not based on recognition rather than posessions.

 

Slavery is the opposite. In a capitalist system, vast amounts of wealth are accumulated and remain in the posession of a few powerful people who are served by the masses. Of course there are degrees of power and servitude but the scale is skewed so that most people are at the lower end. An industrial complex is a good example. The labor is virtually owned by a corporation which is directed by a powerful group of executives. The notion of individual freedom, ideally that everyone is free to choose a lifestyle, to own a business, or be a professional, is a fantasy for most. The nature of a wealth-based system breeds greed and abuse.

 

The extended family is a good example of a communist system even though it is usually structured as a patriarchy. There is a leader who looks after the welfare of the others who are doing what they can for the group. The Starship Enterprise, though more a military structure, is another example.

[Qfwfq]

IMO, communism deprives the individual of his liberty against his will. I believe that, to take by force the fruits of one's labor, or a man's time against his will, is theft.

Communism takes by force the fruits of one's labor, deprives the individual of his liberty against his will? Where does the ideology specify these things? As I'm asking about the ideology, let's leave Stalin or other examples out.

 

Infamous, East Germany was only one of many examples that do not really illustrate what the Communist ideology says. As Linda says, Communism is virtually unworkable, at least on a national or large scale and I agree more or less about the reason:

people are intrinsically selfish and communism borders on altruism. In a capitalist society it is perfectly legal and almost imperative that the strong victimize the weak.

What drives a Capitalist society is essentially the same thing that goes wrong in large scale examples of Communism. Actually, most of these examples were in reality regimes using the ideology instrumentally.

 

There have been examples, in many countries here in the west, of well-working Socialist systems along with private initiative, but currently these are getting removed and Capitalism is getting fiercer. The effects, practically speaking for most people, could end up being much the same as in the Soviet regimes.

[C1ay]

Communism takes by force the fruits of one's labor, deprives the individual of his liberty against his will? Where does the ideology specify these things? As I'm asking about the ideology, let's leave Stalin or other examples out.

 

Since everything is provided for all, then no one has any need to produce, everyone can just stay home. If you force any of them to work you violate their liberty.

[sanctus]

I diagree C1ay, thereis still the need for everyone to produce as they all know that the state can provide for all only if all do their task. Following the philosphy thamt many water-drop make a sea....

[C1ay]

I diagree C1ay, thereis still the need for everyone to produce as they all know that the state can provide for all only if all do their task. Following the philosphy thamt many water-drop make a sea....

 

If people are compelled to produce then it violates their liberty. OTOH, if they produce on their own to advance themselves with their own rewards and those rewards are taken by force to give to someone that hasn't earned them, then it is theft, even if it is theft by the state. No man should be entitled to another man's time.

[Fishteacher73]

IMO, communism deprives the individual of his liberty against his will. I believe that, to take by force the fruits of one's labor, or a man's time against his will, is theft. It's really no different than slavery.

 

 

By your standards anything less than anarchy (and onlly that if you happen to be the biggest or meanest) is the only option that is not slavery. The gov't taxes without our consent, and even the threat of force is used to collect.

[C1ay]

The gov't taxes without our consent, and even the threat of force is used to collect.

 

Only partially. Many of our taxes have been voted for by us or by the representatives we elected to represent us. The government has certainly abused the system but we are not taxed without representation in the U.S. The Gestapo tactics used to collect have been obsoleted in favor of placing the burden of proof on the government. At worst case one may now file an offer in compromise to relieve a debt they cannot pay. Such an offer carries a reserve that protects the basic needs of the taxpayer and the other debtors which are entitled to their share of the taxpayers revenue. The current threat of force to collect is weak at best.

[Qfwfq]

OTOH, if they produce on their own to advance themselves with their own rewards and those rewards are taken by force to give to someone that hasn't earned them, then it is theft, even if it is theft by the state. No man should be entitled to another man's time.

If large corporations succede in having the labour market so that most people are working their guts out, at a low salary, to the advantage of a few, aren't their rewards being taken by force to give to someone who hasn't earned them? Isn't it theft, albeit authorized by the state?

If you force any of them to work you violate their liberty.

Does Capitalism allow one to rob banks? Wouldn't liberty require that one had the right to do this and other things?

 

In the pure ideology, every member of the community should feel the duty toward society and not need to be forced. The idea is that everybody rows the boat, without trying to escape their contribution. How does a group of friends treat someone who has often taken advantage of friendly generosity but defects when it is another that's in need? In this instance, who's the one that's stealing? When you were a baby, who forced your parents to do anything for you? I hope they willingly provided for your needs.

[Qfwfq]

Many of our taxes have been voted for by us or by the representatives we elected to represent us.

In democratic Communism, as opposed to a Stalinist regime, the people make choices collectively and hence much the same goes about the state "forcefully stealing a man's time".

 

In a democracy, people may vote for a Socialist or for a Communist gov't, or for any other option that is candidated. Next time they can vote differently. Who can complain, one way or the other, about the state stealing? So long as it remains a real democracy, of course. A regime is a different pair of trousers.

[Fishteacher73]

There may be the "people's" consent but I personally would face the possiblity of jail time if I refused to pay. They would be taking w/o my consent and therfore theft.

[Biochemist]

Communism (as various forms of socialism) is the default structure for many advanced cultures in science fiction stories. Everyone is a valued participant and entitled to the same priveleges. What's wrong with that? Certainly it's a lot more fair and humane than capitalism.

The main problem in any sizable communist community is that they tend toward totalitarianism. Small units (e.g., a kibbutz in Israel) work pretty well because the direct personal involvement on the part of each individual is readily witnessed by their peers.

 

The problems arise when systems get large. Orwell captured a lot of the flavor of the problem in Animal Farm pretty well. The problem is not with the philosophical roots ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his need") but with the implementation. Some folks have a difficult time seeing the value of other folks' contributions. Farmers have a hard time seeing value in bankers or administrators. Laborers may see less value in knowledge work than in manual labor. These perceptions of inequality lead to a perception of unfairness. This will spawn implementation of a control structure to make sure that everyting remains fair. Then people fight for a role in the control structure.

 

Sound familiar?

[Biochemist]

I tend to agree that communism systems are virtually unworkable, not because the notion is unpopular so much as that people are intrinsically selfish and communism borders on altruism. In a capitalist society it is perfectly legal and almost imperative that the strong victimize the weak.

I'm not sure this is a fair critique of capitalism (although there certainly are some). Under capitalism, those with greater economic potential are allowed to make more money by working more, working more efficiently, and by taking risk. This will invariably produce winners and losers in the economic game. Victimization per se is not an intrinsic part of the model, although there are certianly cases where it occurs. Experientially, victimization appears much more likely in a communistic model than in a capitalistic one.

 

Socialism is an interesting mix. Socialistic societies could mix the best of both worlds. They have private ownership of assets, but gains are taxed and spread around for the public good. The problem is that over time, high-tax societies grow more slowly than low tax societies, because the economic incentives are lower in a high-tax climate. Ergo, those societies that have more liberal economic climates tend to outperform in the long run. America outperforms Sweden most years, and dramatically over the long term. As long as Swedes don't care, it is OK. If they begin to see that their standard of living is not keeping up with the Joneses, they may feel a little discontent.

[bumab]

The problem is that over time, high-tax societies grow more slowly than low tax societies, because the economic incentives are lower in a high-tax climate. Ergo, those societies that have more liberal economic climates tend to outperform in the long run. America outperforms Sweden most years, and dramatically over the long term. As long as Swedes don't care, it is OK. If they begin to see that their standard of living is not keeping up with the Joneses, they may feel a little discontent.

 

Which brings up the interesting quesion: How do you measure the success of an economic model?

 

How happy and content the people are? Europe wins hands down.

GDP? USA all the way.

 

I obviously go for the happiness model. I don't think that any measure of success that relies on growth or production is tenable for an economic ideal in the long run, being as we live on a world with limited resources. Economies should focus on making people happier, not making people MORE.

 

However, that would be a fundamental philisophical change in the population as much as an economic overhaul. If people still think that more is better, any economic system is doomed to fail one way or the other- capitalism through victimization of the weak, communism through corruption or laziness. Pick your poison.

[Biochemist]

Which brings up the interesting quesion: How do you measure the success of an economic model?

 

How happy and content the people are? Europe wins hands down.

GDP? USA all the way.

 

I obviously go for the happiness model.

I agree this is a great question. I never, however, heard anyone assert that Europeans are "happier". (I have heard some folks suggest that primitive cultures are "happier".)

 

Tell me why you think Europeans are happier. I would have thought the reverse.

[bumab]

There are a few sources, although I've not looked it up in a couple years. I just googled the subject, and found:

 

http://humandevelopment.bu.edu/use_exsisting_index/show_aggregate.cfm?index_id=231&data_type=1[/url]

- site with the top 68 countries ranked by happiness. it doesn't say the method used for aquiring the info, though. the US doesn't actually do so bad in this poll, although the more socialist (to my knowledge) European countries do continue to rank higher, like Norway, the Swiss, etc.

 

We're number 14! yeah! ;)

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Happiness-Tashi-Wangyal8oct04.htm

a wall street journal article from 6 months ago about Buhtan that's interesting.

 

Sorry i didn't get more. I'm sure our Europan friends here have an opinion and better sources ;). I really got to get to work!

[bumab]

Also, things like hours worked per week, health care availability, systems which alleivate fear of getting hurt and missing work, retirement systems, environment, and other things usually seem to be better in socialist countries.

[Fishteacher73]

Perhaps in monetary concerns the US out performs Sweden, but I do not see that as a particularly big issue. The basic economy is as strong as the US and the Gov't actually helps take care of its citizens. The average work week in Sweden is only 37 hrs. and unemployement is very low (aprox 4%). OTH the US averages a work week is 46 hrs and unemployement is about 5%.