CommunismVsCapitilism

[Strike For The South]

Which do you guys think is better?

Ps I want to have an actual conversation not a flame war so if you make it in to that I will find and...well just don't do it :beadyeyes2:

[PanzerJaeger]

Compare Russia with the USA. Theres your answer.

Communism was the worst ideology ever to infect humanity.

[kiwitt]

Given the choice: Capitalism. Where individual efforts are rewarded appropriately.

[bmolsson]

China has resorted to capitalism.


BS. They resort to slavery and we don't do anything about it. Shame on us.



On the flip side, the USA is still one of the world's largest economies, and whatever economic problems we face stem from stupidity on the part of certain individuals, and not the system.


The success of US is more due to the size of the economy than the system itself. US success is built on SME, unfortunately there is a trend, just like in Europe, to not acknowledge this.
So far US have managed to keep monopolisitic forces at bay. The largest threat against US economy is money politics and monopolism.

[Strike For The South]

So far US have managed to keep monopolisitic forces at bay. The largest threat against US economy is money politics and monopolism.

Although Im a capitalist I agree if companies get uber big ie microsoft they should be split

[bmolsson]

Capitalism with clear fair competition regulation is the best.

[AntiochusIII]

I must agree with bmolsson here...

Capitalism, unregulated, uncontrolled one, is dangerous. Capitalism without some sort of Socialism in place is a nightmare as much as Communism-that-isn't-exactly-what-Marx-wants was. Imagine living as a simple British citizen during the early Industrial Revolution. Hell.

Monopolism is, if you look it one way, Capitalism goes wild. Everybody except the monopoly "aristocrats" loses.

SME is the key, I suppose, for true competition and energetic liberty that Capitalism advertises...

And yeah, the Chinese government should go to...well, I don't believe in hell...whatever serves as an equivalent of hell in Communist China. As a civilization China is one of the greatest ever. As a nation currently it sucks. Badly. Capitalism in China isn't that strong and freedom the West enjoys is virtually nil in China.

[bmolsson]

Sweat shops are capitalism at it's worst. Our economy relied on something similar in the 1920s or thereabouts. Luckily we've since found a balance.


Not the same thing. Chinese workers have no right to organize themselves.



Size matters, but not that much. Look at the USSR--they were much bigger than the USA. A small nation can be more than successful with capitalism. The real trick is making sure that the government does not interfere with business to the point of being crippling, but also making sure that the businesses do not exploit the workers.


USSR's economy was never even close to US in size. Furthermore, the collaps of USSR was political rather than economical.

The real trick is to enforce the rules of the game in a free market economy. The workers is only a part of that.

[bmolsson]

I believe that Social Security should be seen as a insurance scheme, it is actually nothing else. With that in mind, there are no problem to have it privately owned. No taxes are required....

[Roark]

Nobody's ever successfully implemented Communism, nor do I think they will. All the governments who tried got a little stuck at the bit where they're supposed to hand over power.... ~;)

[bmolsson]

Nobody's ever successfully implemented Communism, nor do I think they will. All the governments who tried got a little stuck at the bit where they're supposed to hand over power.... ~;)

More or less every army is a communistic society. Communism is successful during a war or revolution. The moment peace comes and people are no longer driven by fear, it doesn't work anymore.
Same thing with capitalism, it works wonders in peace, but is many times a disaster in war.
Communism have no place in a peaceful and prosperous world and it should always be seen as a threat since it is expansionistic in it's nature.

[Kääpäkorven Konsuli]

Well it is bit hard to compare, because there have been many capitalistic countries but not a single one communistic. (USSR was socialistic for example).

[Gawain of Orkeny]

More or less every army is a communistic society.

No their not but they are indeed the best examples of socialism that works. ~;) That is if you dont mind being dictated to and being thrown in jail for being late for work or quiting. Or telling your boss to shove it. ~D

[bmolsson]

No their not but they are indeed the best examples of socialism that works. ~;) That is if you dont mind being dictated to and being thrown in jail for being late for work or quiting. Or telling your boss to shove it. ~D

When you mention it, I might implement it in my companies. Would end all those pesky negotiations with unions..... ~;)

[Soulforged]

Given the choice: Capitalism. Where individual efforts are rewarded appropriately.

They're not rewarded appropriately at all. Look an actor who only does ideal things doesn't produce nothing at all, gains well better that a guy who is just one more in the chain of production in a company, and works more hours and under harsh conditions. This absurd of the capitalism and economic neoliberal way of thinking is what leads to discussions like "are fair the pensions to aged mans", the truth is not, they're not actually working, but with communism you have an advantage on administration because everybody recieves what they work for and what they need, nothing more. This may seem a little opressing, but it's intended to be. As general income increases benefits do to.
The theory of communism is large an exhaustive (specially if we talk about other autors outside Marx, Engels or Lenin) so i will remit to the wise of Marx and say that communism is superior. The very word communism signifies community of all, of property, of woman, of job, of children (that's what it should be on the end, but it's to ideal to talk about). But if you think that communism is the only thing that appears to happen or have happened in reality then you're mistaken again. Democracy is another ilusion. True democracy don't rely on representatives. The thing is simple, government by the people to the people. True democracy is a heated subject, but i know three ways to get to it in wich three different authors wrote: Marx as the true communism (the state don't exists it's laws an behavior are already of public knowledge by a great majority of people born from the proletariate who have learned to act in society), Castoriadis (he proposes a travel to ancient greece, and a new interpretation of certain aspects of it's society, but in general he talks about the existence of common knowledge and how it should be applied to participate on government by all) and Bakunin (creating a cooperative system with not central government, keeping nationalism and certain fronteirs, he called his ideal model "The League"). But that's just to make my point. Also everybody thinks that communism is past and of eastern society, like if USA could never get into it. In fact as Trosky stated britain was very close to get into it, a series of condition (treated like a scientific statement) must have appeared for that but it wasn't that rare. USA makes well use of capitalism, and capitalism controlled is not bad, but communism is better. The problem with capitalism seems to have two sides here: 1- Everybody thinks that the society of the capitalist with people winning large amounts of money while others starve in the street, it's fair and it's by default. The capitalism surges almost with the industrial revolution, but the process begun before in the absolutism, with mercantilism. Now is you do some research you will notice that the only thing that changed since nobility, is that now "everybody" can achieve that state of superiority above all others. Law remained the same (being one of the most effective instruments in keeping the society regid), so the thing that everybody can do it is not absolute at all. There're two problems that were discussed way before capitalism existed: One is the inheritance of property and the other is Intelectual Property. There's no actual way in the material world to justify such a thing, but you can impose an idea as fair and create a law that protect this things, most people will accept it, even more those who are already rich. So most of the capital worked by others passes to the hands of some lucky man who can put it in some bank and get the inrest, and live of it. The same happened on monarchy and nobility in general, permited one person to just sit, get fat and receive profit for doing that. Well if anybody has a coment in this then i respond, if not... well i just can't go forever, right? :sleep: :sleep:

[Roark]

Hmm, yeah...

Considering the salaries of Web Developers, Lawyers, and Public Relations professionals, I don't think that capitalism rewards "appropriately" at all...

~;)

[Soulforged]

Hmm, yeah...

Considering the salaries of Web Developers, Lawyers, and Public Relations professionals, I don't think that capitalism rewards "appropriately" at all...

~;)

Totally agree. ~D ~D . But if i wanted ot iniciate a revolution here, i would have to wait for a thousand years so people can undestand history, politics and actuallity, an ignorant proletaraite like the bolsheviks will be a disaster as it was. The irony is that i was forced for life to follow a profesional career, and it's laws...

[Roark]

Lawyers are just a convenient scapegoat for society, mate. We love to hate them. The education and training to get there, though, is huuuge.

Web Developers, however, cheese me right off. My best mate has no training, and is earning 120,000 p.a.

Jealousy is so ugly.

[Al Khalifah]

Even the semi-socialist European states are rather unstable, such as France.

On the flip side, the USA is still one of the world's largest economies, and whatever economic problems we face stem from stupidity on the part of certain individuals, and not the system.
The 'semi-socialist' European Union is in fact a larger economy than the United States.

2005 GDP (nominal) as conducted by the IMF (Country / US$ million)
European Union 13,926,873
United States 12,438,873
Japan 4,799,061

[ah_dut]

The 'semi-socialist' European Union is in fact a larger economy than the United States.

2005 GDP (nominal) as conducted by the IMF (Country / US$ million)
European Union 13,926,873
United States 12,438,873
Japan 4,799,061
The EU isn't as solid a trading block as America though and has many differing languages.

And France, Germany etc do have pretty high unemploymeny to my knowledge

[Lazul]

If cummunism would suddenly work I would choose it, but seeing as the human race is to damn stupid to make it work and care more for themselfs then anybody ells it will never work.
So I guess we are stuck with this crappy system we have now. ~:handball:

But what we Are capable of doing is moving capitalism to the left and mix it with socialism wich would lead more happy and less sad faces.

...[snip]...

EDIT: I don't think we need this colourful language here...

Ser Clegane

[Steppe Merc]

Communism is a far better idea. I believe it is ultimately impossible for an entire nation to achieve true communism.

Lazul summed up my views exactly (save for whatever was snipped, I don't want to know, and I don't neccasarily agree. ~;) )

[Kagemusha]

Communism is Utopia.It will never happen as long as humans are still individuals.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Capitalism.

Communism is slavery. You are enslaved to your fellow man, bound to give him the result of your labor, whether or not he has earned it.


They're not rewarded appropriately at all. Look an actor who only does ideal things doesn't produce nothing at all, gains well better that a guy who is just one more in the chain of production in a company, and works more hours and under harsh conditions.

Millions of people would pay to see a movie with a famous actor, while any body off the street could perform a menial factory job. It's simple supply and demand; there is only that one actor in the entire world, while there are millions who could do the factory job. Yes, some people are probably overpaid. But that's not a problem witht he system, it's because of people who are willing to keep seeing movies or going to sports games no matter how expensive.


This absurd of the capitalism and economic neoliberal way of thinking is what leads to discussions like "are fair the pensions to aged mans", the truth is not, they're not actually working, but with communism you have an advantage on administration because everybody recieves what they work for and what they need, nothing more. This may seem a little opressing, but it's intended to be. As general income increases benefits do to.

An advantage on administration? Hardly. You have to decide what the 'needs' are for each seperate person, and assign accordingly. Since it would take forever to do that by committee, you'd probably end up with a couple people deciding the fate of the entire populace.

And here we come to one of the fundamental flaws of communism-it gives money based on subjective needs, not work, and so people make themselves needier to get more money, instead of working harder. Also, they try to reduce their abilities so they work less, and can force others to work harder.

And general income will never increase. People can work really hard, and have a practically nothing to gain from it, while others can stop working completely, and lose nothing. So why would people work more? Perhaps, if people were ants, communism would work, but we have brains and are not purposeless drones whose sole reason for existence is increasing production.


1- Everybody thinks that the society of the capitalist with people winning large amounts of money while others starve in the street, it's fair and it's by default.

There is no large seperation a la Victorian England. The vast majority of homeless in the USA have some sort of mental disorder. On average, the poor family in the USA has 2 color TVs, amoung other things. They would be high middle class 50 years ago. The American economy raises the standard of living for all of its people. The tycoons who get rich off some thing, like cars, vacuums, etc., do so by providing those products cheaply. It is in their interest to see that there are people who can afford their products.


There're two problems that were discussed way before capitalism existed: One is the inheritance of property and the other is Intelectual Property. There's no actual way in the material world to justify such a thing, but you can impose an idea as fair and create a law that protect this things, most people will accept it, even more those who are already rich. So most of the capital worked by others passes to the hands of some lucky man who can put it in some bank and get the inrest, and live of it. The same happened on monarchy and nobility in general, permited one person to just sit, get fat and receive profit for doing that. Well if anybody has a coment in this then i respond, if not... well i just can't go forever, right?

Why does most of the money go to the executives? Supply and demand. There is a low supply of executives, and high demand for someone who can lead a company. They are not 'lucky', they work hard. Andrew Carnige (sp?) built a steel empire through hard work. Unlike the workers who just worked their jobs, he grew a huge steel empire, and so is paid more. I see a recurring theme amoung socialists where they seem to believe that since factory workers have had some small part in the construction-not the planning, marketing, conception, or design-of a product they should get a much larger share of the wealth. But unlike the executives, they are easy to replace. And were it not for the executives, they wouldn't even have a job, and that factory wouldn't exist.

Closing thoughts; I often read talk of 'seizing' the factories. Why never any talk of a bunch of socialist getting together and building their own factory? Is it because communism does not lend itself to actually creating new things, only stealing?

Crazed Rabbit

[Kagemusha]

I would like to ask alittle question here.Why everything has to be black and white in economics politics.I think you can have free markets and taxpayed wellfare state at the sametime.It takes something from both ideologys.First in order to be competitive you have to have a free markets that are not lead by the government.So supply will meet demand.I think that labour Unions are also important,ofcourse their main job is to look after workers intrests.But they also look after that unprofessional workers wont destroy the quality of products.In a Nordic model government doesnt tax companies more heavily then in Capitalistic Nations.The wellfare state is builded by high income taxation of workers.So they are paying the goverment for their free healthcare,education and pensions.It has nothing to do with Communism where you would get same pay,no matter what you do.People are not equal in their contributions for society.And that will never chance. :bow:

[Crazed Rabbit]

The wellfare state is builded by high income taxation of workers.So they are paying the goverment for their free healthcare,education and pensions.

While that is not communism, it does provide a drag on the economy because of inherent government efficiency, and so the people don't get as much out of there money as they would through private institutions.

A non-welfare state will have a better economy and so its people will be better off.

Crazed Rabbit

[Goofball]

They're not rewarded appropriately at all.

They most certainly are. Consumers ultimately dictate the rewards for all workers, be they trash collectors, movie stars, or corporate executives. A municipality that pays it's trash collectors too much will have to raise property taxes to such levels that owners will become dissatisfied and vote in new city leaders who will make cost cuts in areas like trash collectors' wages. A movie studio that pays its actors too much will eventually go under due to experiencing losses, as will a corporation that pays its executives too much.

The key word here is "appropriate." If you believe "appropriate" reward for work should be correlated to how much somebody sweats while working, then you are correct, we do not reward people appropriately for their labor.

However, if you believe that "appropriate" reward for work should be correlated to how much consumers are willing to pay for that work, then yes, we are rewarding labor appropriately.

Just because a job is physically difficult, uncomfortable, or dangerous does not mean it should offer high remuneration. If there is no consumer demand for the skills required to do that job, then the job should not command high wages. Translation: if you have not taken the time to learn skills that are valued by society, then tough titty; you will not make a lot of money.

[Kagemusha]

While that is not communism, it does provide a drag on the economy because of inherent government efficiency, and so the people don't get as much out of there money as they would through private institutions.

A non-welfare state will have a better economy and so its people will be better off.

Crazed Rabbit

Explain to me why?Our government byus much of its services from private organisations.And at this years study Finland is the less corrupted country in the world.Some governments are more capable than others.I also understand that this kind of model doesnt suit very large countries because the organizations tend to get too heavy.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Gov't beuracracies (sp?) are naturally less efficient than private businesses, even if they contract out a lot of private companies, because the gov't has a monopoly. No one else can compete with them, so they have no incentive to improve their services. And in the USA at least, the workers are lazy, overpaid people*.

And besides, people should be able to choose what they want to pay for, and not have it chosen for them.

*I'm talking about gov't departments, like the dep't of motor vehicles, and not police or firefighters.

Crazed Rabbit

[Reverend Joe]

They most certainly are. Consumers ultimately dictate the rewards for all workers, be they trash collectors, movie stars, or corporate executives. A municipality that pays it's trash collectors too much will have to raise property taxes to such levels that owners will become dissatisfied and vote in new city leaders who will make cost cuts in areas like trash collectors' wages. A movie studio that pays its actors too much will eventually go under due to experiencing losses, as will a corporation that pays its executives too much.

People are often blind to everything except what is in front of them. Letting people decide the pay levels of professions is a terrible idea, because of social stigmas, raw greed, and basic human idiocy (and its cousin, ignorance). Unfortunately, this means that any and all systems are doomed to failure, because every human is inherently greedy, and desperate to spread his or her own gene pool. It doesn't always surface, but it is down there, in our basic survivalist instincts.

The short answer: neither capitalism nor communism, or anarchism, or socialism, or any other system will work. Unless we can find a way to remove the Reptilian complex and limbic system from our brains and operate entirely on the neocortex, this will always remain true. And besides, removing the instincts that tear down our systems will also turn us into mindless automatons, perfectly utilizing whatever system we are handed.

So pick an economic and governmental system, and defend it all you like, because in the end, it won't work- the point is to be hopeful.
~:cheers:

(In case you are wondering, yes, I have been reading "The Dragons of Eden".)

[Kagemusha]

I understand your wiew on thisCrazed Rabbit.And i agree that byrocrats are annoying.But you can get good people to the public sector when they are payed enough.You have to remember that Healthcare and Education arent very profitable businesses.How would you feell about about privatizing Army,Firedepartment or Police?I think that the reason why we dont agree on this.Is that i see Healthcare and Education as basic service from goverment that should be equally provided to every citizen like police,firedepartment or Army.And you my friend dont. :bow:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

When the government provides Healthcare and education services, you generally don't have a whole lot of choices in what you want. Generally.

[Kagemusha]

When the government provides Healthcare and education services, you generally don't have a whole lot of choices in what you want. Generally.

Explain this to me Alexander?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

It takes money to pay for, say, public education. The government takes this money through my (yes "my", I'm working now!) taxes. Then I can send my kids to public education for "free" or send them to a private school at an additional charge. If the government didn't provide public education, I would get taxed less (hopefully) and I'd send my kids to a private school I approved of. Of course, public education isn't a great argument, since I don't think we could afford to cut it, not from grades K-12.

[Kagemusha]

We dont have privat schools in here.The point behind public education is that it doesnt matter if parents are rich or poor but every children has equall chance to have a great education if they are smart enough.This also gives better standards for grades.Since all education is compeareble.So if i pay high taxes i allow some children from poor family to be something great.I have nothing against that.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

What if the available public education out-and-out sucks? In parts of the US, this is true, and private schools are better in some areas. What do you do if the public schools are just screwing over poor kids? You could try to fix them, but in the mean time, private schools can be a better alternative.

[Kagemusha]

What if the available public education out-and-out sucks? In parts of the US, this is true, and private schools are better in some areas. What do you do if the public schools are just screwing over poor kids? You could try to fix them, but in the mean time, private schools can be a better alternative.

I dont know your education system that well.But i think if public and private schools co-exist.Public schools start to suck,because the private schools get more money from the richer families and can therefore provide better education.That leads to an situation where rich people put their kids to the best of the private schools,the average citizens try to get their children the best education that they can afford.And the poor have no other option then to put their children to public schools which have turned into dumbsters because the better teachers are working where they get the best salary.The same things goes with the healthcare with fev moderations. :bow:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Also generally speaking, public school teachers get better pay, and public schools usually don't run out of money. Sometimes they do, but not really because of competition with private schools - to my knowledge.

Private schools are not degrading public schools.

[Kagemusha]

Also generally speaking, public school teachers get better pay, and public schools usually don't run out of money. Sometimes they do, but not really because of competition with private schools - to my knowledge.

Private schools are not degrading public schools.

Thats very intresting.I thought that public jobs pay less in almost every country in the world.So how does the private schools get the best teachers?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Remember that my statements are generalizations. They don't hold for everywhere, and I could always be wrong. But, at least where I live, the main private schools are Catholic schools. And they can't afford to pay teachers as much as public school teachers. Sometimes that means private school teachers are quite bad. Sometimes it means they are dedicated and skilled individuals who really help students.

Also where I live, the public schools are not terrible (though not gold-plated, either) so it isn't a great example. Until high school, I was raised in private school only. (And public-schoolers are a bunch of heathen ruffians! Kidding.) So I'm a little biased.

[Kagemusha]

Remember that my statements are generalizations. They don't hold for everywhere, and I could always be wrong. But, at least where I live, the main private schools are Catholic schools. And they can't afford to pay teachers as much as public school teachers. Sometimes that means private school teachers are quite bad. Sometimes it means they are dedicated and skilled individuals who really help students.

Also where I live, the public schools are not terrible (though not gold-plated, either) so it isn't a great example. Until high school, I was raised in private school only. (And public-schoolers are a bunch of heathen ruffians! Kidding.) So I'm a little biased.

Now i understand.Church funded schools.I also must admit that i was thinking pretty extreme ends of schools(elite vs.Ghetto).Its so easy to make generalitions about country that i dont know well enough.Also i think that different churches has bigger impact on your society and i seem to forget that always.We dont have Church funded schools at all. :bow:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Heck, I'm making generalities about my own country that I can't prove one way or another.

[Steppe Merc]

What if the available public education out-and-out sucks? In parts of the US, this is true, and private schools are better in some areas. What do you do if the public schools are just screwing over poor kids? You could try to fix them, but in the mean time, private schools can be a better alternative.
Yes, but sometimes the public school is far superior to the private one, like in my town.
That said many public schools aren't that good. But isn't it often corrosponding with the wealth of the community? I know that the main reason why my school is so good is because of the large amount of rich people that can be taxed. If someone was living in an area with a horrible public school, wouldn't the probably not be able to afford private school? Of course, it's different when the school is say mediocore, and the private school is far better.
But I don't know much about private school, and I'm quite ignorant about it...

And my main dislike of capitlism is dislike of big busniess. I know the government isn't often any better towards the enviornment or workers, or is often actually in the pocket of the big business, but to me, with a more socalist government, the big business would be more kept in line.

[bmolsson]

Thats very intresting.I thought that public jobs pay less in almost every country in the world.So how does the private schools get the best teachers?

I would say that the pay itself has less to do with it. Yes, a private employeed teacher would earn more than a public teacher, but the private teacher would work far more and in the end earn less per worked hour.
It's more a question of job satisfaction. Teachers are more than staff. They need to interact with the children as well as with the collegues. The working environment is most of the time better in a private school, due to smaller size, closer relationship between management and staff and as mentioned, the children are more "selected" (regardless if it's fair or not). Important to mention that most private school have a "theme". The school I own in southern Sweden is using music and art to increase the comfort and performance among children for example.

[Soulforged]

Capitalism.

Communism is slavery. You are enslaved to your fellow man, bound to give him the result of your labor, whether or not he has earned it.



Millions of people would pay to see a movie with a famous actor, while any body off the street could perform a menial factory job. It's simple supply and demand; there is only that one actor in the entire world, while there are millions who could do the factory job. Yes, some people are probably overpaid. But that's not a problem witht he system, it's because of people who are willing to keep seeing movies or going to sports games no matter how expensive.



An advantage on administration? Hardly. You have to decide what the 'needs' are for each seperate person, and assign accordingly. Since it would take forever to do that by committee, you'd probably end up with a couple people deciding the fate of the entire populace.

And here we come to one of the fundamental flaws of communism-it gives money based on subjective needs, not work, and so people make themselves needier to get more money, instead of working harder. Also, they try to reduce their abilities so they work less, and can force others to work harder.

And general income will never increase. People can work really hard, and have a practically nothing to gain from it, while others can stop working completely, and lose nothing. So why would people work more? Perhaps, if people were ants, communism would work, but we have brains and are not purposeless drones whose sole reason for existence is increasing production.



There is no large seperation a la Victorian England. The vast majority of homeless in the USA have some sort of mental disorder. On average, the poor family in the USA has 2 color TVs, amoung other things. They would be high middle class 50 years ago. The American economy raises the standard of living for all of its people. The tycoons who get rich off some thing, like cars, vacuums, etc., do so by providing those products cheaply. It is in their interest to see that there are people who can afford their products.



Why does most of the money go to the executives? Supply and demand. There is a low supply of executives, and high demand for someone who can lead a company. They are not 'lucky', they work hard. Andrew Carnige (sp?) built a steel empire through hard work. Unlike the workers who just worked their jobs, he grew a huge steel empire, and so is paid more. I see a recurring theme amoung socialists where they seem to believe that since factory workers have had some small part in the construction-not the planning, marketing, conception, or design-of a product they should get a much larger share of the wealth. But unlike the executives, they are easy to replace. And were it not for the executives, they wouldn't even have a job, and that factory wouldn't exist.

Closing thoughts; I often read talk of 'seizing' the factories. Why never any talk of a bunch of socialist getting together and building their own factory? Is it because communism does not lend itself to actually creating new things, only stealing?

Crazed Rabbit

The final comment is ignorant, they are not stealing, they are recovering the things that they worked for.

You're contradictind yourself: firstly you say that there's people willing to pay (that's demand) for movies (is just an example, there're lawyers, atlets, but anyway that's offer). Capitalism works for demand and offer system, then it's a problem of the system. Anyway that's not the point: people that don't produce something material cannot be rewarded because they're not giving the society anything useful, to survive, create, dress... They give you a movie, a social order, a championship, that all is ideal (is just like God). You them something material (real power) in return they give you nothing. Then if you want to reward someone, do it with the guy who fabricates the tapes or the DVD's.
The administration is superior because you actually reward time/work. What i'm saying is that they get what they need because of their actual needs (family, expenses) but they have to work for it. Anyway this is not communism this is socialism, this can be done even in capitalism. Also this is an ideal model (like capitalism), you have to prove it to see how it works on reality. You're making unsupported assumptions like "and so people make themselves needier to get more money, instead of working harder. Also, they try to reduce their abilities so they work less, and can force others to work harder." So they don't receive depending on they needs, but this is considered as a initial cap, during socialism. In capitalism, the capitalist, that only apports money and lives always best that the rest (even in USA, you will find that Rockefeller lives better than the average man), or in other words, he don't works, takes all the plusvalue with the selling of the mercancies.
The point is that you will work less than in capitalism, but everybody will work. And the thing of "People can work really hard, and have a practically nothing to gain from it, while others can stop working completely, and lose nothing" i think i already have cleared it. I don't know where you live, but in many places around the world, where capitalism works, some people work like ants and others don't work at all. You are contradicting yourself again, you don't seem to like the wrong assumption that in communism someones will not work, when actually that happens in capitalism, and protected by the laws. You will like very much come here and see what capitalism has done.
"On average, the poor family in the USA has 2 color TVs, amoung other things. They would be high middle class 50 years ago. The American economy raises the standard of living for all of its people. The tycoons who get rich off some thing, like cars, vacuums, etc., do so by providing those products cheaply. It is in their interest to see that there are people who can afford their products." That's not the point. Capitalism can work well, i already said that Marx loved it's mecanism, but as Machiavelo in his time, he was creating the new "instructions to evolution". The fact is that laws works for maintaining the rigid social structures. Marx thought in a way to finish with all this "historic" forms of domination, "the one above the other thing"."Communism is slavery. You are enslaved to your fellow man, bound to give him the result of your labor, whether or not he has earned it." While in capitalism you are enslaved to some "fellowman", in communism you're not considered a number, you're treated like a man and rewarded for your work, while you're not being deminished to an inferior position in social structure by law. In socialism some parts of the structure and the laws are mainteined to keep an order until all differences beetween clases are gone. Capitalism works by keeping that differences and then creating socialist projects of law to leave people of "lesser classes" calm. That's exactly what Keynes proposes and what the Benefactor State has done in reality.
The problem with you is the word easy. Because it's easy replacing some worker by other (you're considering them like numbers). Again you're are considering the "ideal" part, the nothing (as Bakunin so crealy stated), more important than the actual work (the material). But i would say that's more easy to the capitalist that just puts money (part of his life or all of it) and don't needs any pension, the worker can have serious fisical issues. If you can understand what is the absurdity to pay the "ideal", then i will explain to you further more, but you seem to be a fanatic of Hegel (tough Hegel was the first to discover how revolutions worked, and Marx used it very well).
To finish, they "seize" factories, not because they can't construct them, but because they have to throw the capitalist from their "throne", and the only way is by force. There're other communist that believe in a more ideal way to take control and achieve a new order, but all fail to see reality. Try to talk to a capitalist and say "please give us your factories". I believe i have answered all your questions, but ask me if you have more, again i'm not communist, not an expert on it, but i seem to know more than you. ~D

[Papewaio]

You're contradictind yourself: firstly you say that there's people willing to pay (that's demand) for movies (is just an example, there're lawyers, atlets, but anyway that's offer). Capitalism works for demand and offer system, then it's a problem of the system. Anyway that's not the point: people that don't produce something material cannot be rewarded because they're not giving the society anything useful, to survive, create, dress... They give you a movie, a social order, a championship, that all is ideal (is just like God). You them something material (real power) in return they give you nothing. Then if you want to reward someone, do it with the guy who fabricates the tapes or the DVD's.

I think ideas are more important then material work.

After all fire is an idea.

A spade is an idea. It is a lever with a broad head that allows one to move earth faster then just using your material hands. The idea to make the tool is very important. It allows the maker of the tool to do more digging in less time then someone using hands. In some cases it allows the digger to dig where hands do not work.

An excavator allows even more earth to be moved.

As does TNT which is another idea which allows the earth to be softened up, without which hands, spades or excavators cannot move the stone.

TNT as an idea generates royalties which in turn rewards some of the best ideas that help humanity.

Humans advantage over other animals are ideas. To deny that they are useful is to deny our greatest advantage. Communism and large governmants and companies fail because they reduce the amount of people who can contribute useful ideas in a timely fashion to the day to day problems at hand.

[Graphic]

Communism...actual Communism, i.e. Marxism. All of the run-down "Communist" dictatorships were Marxist-Leninist, not the same thing.

[Soulforged]

I think ideas are more important then material work.

Humans advantage over other animals are ideas. To deny that they are useful is to deny our greatest advantage. Communism and large governmants and companies fail because they reduce the amount of people who can contribute useful ideas in a timely fashion to the day to day problems at hand.

Firstly, i never sayed that ideas are not useful, they are just not worthy of value.
The ideas are the origin of every invention, but they exist only in human mind. The product is only visible and useful once it's done, and to make you need to work. Again all communist and anarquist have stated their points in this subject, the explanation given by Bakunin is one of the best i have readed about it, but it's to long ot express it here. Anyway as i said Marx created and useful tool to bring down the capitalists that are mainteining this cancer, and keeping the rest in their "positions". Capitalism needs capitalists and proletariate, the middle class is just a consolation, even so it doesn't make up for the differences.
They are useful but if nothing works on it, if nothing closes to the thing and gives it form, aproching to it and learning and making it usable, then it doesn't have real form, it's just an idea. And the worst is that you're paying for that idea, you're paying for modding a game based on "The Lord of the Rings" or in "Star Wars". The idea on communism is for many porposes just an utilitarist idea, ideas exist but everybody are reduced to human level, and relate with respect and iquality to each other working on the same level, nor one is intiteled to rule the other. You will notice that communism is an idea, but it tried to keep ideologies to a minimum.
Your perspective is wrong, and cannot withstand a deep analisys. The general idea that everybody had about ideas is that they were to keep free flowing information, restrict this information and the instruments that they can generate, and you are obstructing evolution. This final idea isn't from communism anyway, is it my apreciattion. Even if you think that ideas are still more important that the actual work who makes them, then give me a reason to pay more to a guy who has the idea of the "clip", patents it, gains money, puts a fabric and then he rests the rest of his life, while various "monkeys" break their asses on working at least 8hs a day, for the rest of their life. The second could never go to Japan, never see the Pantheon at Greece. The ideas flow all the time in my mind, in yours. Even from your perspective, imagine that a guy had the idea of the "clip" far before this one that patented it. If you want to reward the idea then you will have to reward the first, but again, an idea (law) keeps you from doing that, and every time you break the law you have to pay that guy who patented it (wich maybe didn't ever thought in the idea but stealed it from another) making him even more rich, even when you actually broke that law to actually produce something and fulfill the demand, or in the case of some medical products and quimics inside aliments, demand for health, that's worst to keep for fulfilling. There's an ancient sentence that goes something like this: "When you think that you have thought something, somebody has done it before you" (this sentence is from an argentinian author, Borges, maybe you know it, but the ironic thing is that he tells later that even that sentence was already expressed by other).
Humans advantege over other animals are originated in the "flesh". The body evolves far before the mind. That bullshit of mind over body, has taken it toll on everything. If you don't have suffcient founds you cannot expende it, and that's a principle. We could think in that ideas, because our brain grew. But this is turning to existencialist and escatologigal, there's no reason to follow that way. Keep it simple, Marx tought (and Engels) in a way to reconciliate the society with itself and with all individuals, eliminating all superflual things and keeping escencial things, the matter. Matter existed long before ideas. Is simply that problem with determining the origin an value of the ideas and the matter of iquality and how to reach it. It's an illusion that you can actually achieve iquality in capitalism because capitalism itself works by keeping differences, and you cannot be free if you're not equal.
Slavery is a strong word, slaves are considered things, expendable things without name in civilization and law, i don't know if you want to use that word for communism (Crazzed Rabbit). Anyway, don't see things for what happened in reality, i think that the question is about teories. Little time, or non at all teories work in reality. In teory, communism is best than capitalism. It's a myth that it obstructs freedom (specially of expression, for godsake i don't know where everybody gets that), it only restricts what things are worthy of being valuable, what things are important to evolution and to matter.
"Communism and large governmants and companies fail because they reduce the amount of people who can contribute useful ideas in a timely fashion to the day to day problems at hand". Again capitalism fails too. But you're mistaking communism with socialism again (even is some civilization reaches socialism, true socialism, no one reached communism). All this kinds of teories base themselves, ironicaly, in the inexistance of state and governments (in communism is little more complicated). And they don't reduce the amount of ideas, they increase it. If you have a population of 1000 man where 500 actually works for 8hs a day (tough that is very ideal, because here the minimum is much more large), 100 aged mans who live from pension, and the rest who "think" (you seem to like this much), the the first group (the largest in any economy) comes home, is he has a family try to take some time for them, if he has to makes homework he does it (wich may take a lot of time), eats, maybe reads or sees something and sleeps to awake again the next morning an go to work. The last kind has half the day to "think", and many times that's the actual only activity, they think, the others do (let's say he haves 12hs a day that's ideal too). It has to seem unfair even at this point, but if not, the look at the next population we have 1000 man: 800 actually work, let's say 4hs a day (who have 7hs/day to think if they want), 200 are aged mans (in socialism there will be a political class, that will include selected proletariats and lawyers too, so let's say that in that case is 100 aged mans/ 100 policts). But now the first group has actually 4hs free to think in better ways to rule, to live, to makes things more easy, to spend time with loved beings. Is you made some mats (First= 4800 or + hours of "thinking", "idealizing" a day. Second= 5600 or + hours a day) you will see my point, btw the numbers are totally arbitrary, but to state my point it does the work just find. If i missed something tell me. This final part is a little ridiculous but necessary it seems.
PS: Seemed that you understood me just fine this time... ~D :duel:
PSS: I've noticed that you seem to have the same problem with socialism that i have with USA, but in teory the hours/work per day are reduced not augmented... ~:handball:

[Soulforged]

Communism...actual Communism, i.e. Marxism. All of the run-down "Communist" dictatorships were Marxist-Leninist, not the same thing.

Correct. And not only that, as i've posted elsewhere, Lenin comited the worst mistake of all to lead ignorant people to the "battlefield", a part of the Marxist teory that was wrong interpreted, tough Lenin did a lot of work in improving and adapting the socialist-communist teory.

[Papewaio]

I must admit that it is hard to read what you write... it helps that I have taught English as a Foreign Language.

Ideas are important, and so is the application of them. Ideas free of action are stillborn

The great thing about ideas is that one person can think of them, many can implement them.

Specialisation helps people get better at various fields of thinking, while a liberal amount of cross specialisation helps fertilise the mind.

I do not think everyone is equal when it comes to thinking, anymore then I think everyone is the same height, weight and sex. I do think we should have equal access to training so we can have the best (who want to) can the go on and do the job regardless of their origin.

Some people have a better body for basketball, some people have a better brain for physics, and some lucky ones have the ability for both.

Information is the organisation of matter, entropy is the disorganisation of matter. Our DNA is plans that are waiting to be implemented in the form of a human.

Humans have no advantage over others in the flesh. Monkeys are stronger, dolphins swim faster, tigers have bigger teeth. We make tools.

Some of the poorest socieities in the world are those that do not respect ideas and willfully rob others of them without giving back to the creators. If someone gets payed for their ideas, then they should be able to reinvest more time into creating more ideas if they so wish. The likes of Edison, Newton, Einstein, Tolkein etc all created ideas, got payed for them and created more...

[Soulforged]

-"The great thing about ideas is that one person can think of them, many can implement them." No. Many people can think them, many others can apply them, but should be rewarded the one who does this.
-"I do not think everyone is equal when it comes to thinking, anymore then I think everyone is the same height, weight and sex. I do think we should have equal access to training so we can have the best (who want to) can the go on and do the job regardless of their origin." No. Nobody is equal invidually, but that does not intitle the ones who are more inteligent to rule the others on economic terms specially. The point of communism is exactly create the opportunity so all people can be socially equal, that's bringing down the system of domination, the classes system.
-"Some of the poorest socieities in the world are those that do not respect ideas and willfully rob others of them without giving back to the creators. If someone gets payed for their ideas, then they should be able to reinvest more time into creating more ideas if they so wish. The likes of Edison, Newton, Einstein, Tolkein etc all created ideas, got payed for them and created more..." Care to give some examples. Here we have inheritance rights and intelectual property and we are still the "third world". And creators of what? You don't seem to understand that they don't create anything, they just think what anybody could have thought, that he is on best position is an ideal matter, not a real matter, it's just supported by actual laws. They get payed, then that should be the reason because they can think better, mmmm... Do you really readed all that i wrote before, i sayed to you that in socialism or communism are much more people "thinking", now where is more probabilities of getting a new idea. If you born "idealist" then you would have no problem on thinking them as a hobby and give it freely to society, if you do otherwise then you're actually selfcentered and you're not thinking in the others or in the evolution, just in money. If you really like acting then you should have no problems doing it as an extraoficial activity, a hobby. The really funny thing is that you mentiones Newton, do you know that he used his influences to manipulate partners or expulse them of scientifics conferences? Newton actually used that influence so the freely amount of "ideas" of his competitor never got to any conference... Anyway his ideas where the right ones, but that's just to make an example of "robbing" ideas. Try to understand this, there's no robbing of ideas. Suppose that you have an idea of a new machine for space travel and then you tell it to a friend (something stupid in capitalism, camaraderism), this "friend" of yours patents it to his name and from then he makes a lot of money for a thing that you thought. Even giving you a "gift" you will notice why the intelectual property does not have any real support, it's the "nothing" in itself, like all ideas. Capitalism is getting more and more out of "ideas" to stand by itself, that's why in all countries used socialism (diguesed as phylantropy) to calm down the "mob".

[Papewaio]

Here is a paradox:

If ideas are not worth anything, why are you trying to change mine?

[bmolsson]

Here is a paradox:

If ideas are not worth anything, why are you trying to change mine?

Stalin: Because I can...... ~;)

[Soulforged]

Again you're wrong. Ideas do not move the world, but it's the origin of ideologies and is the only way to inform and exchange of information. Ideas worth it all, except money. Why? Because the money gives you actual position and capacity in the REAL world.
I'm not trying to change you, is just a discussion. But it's not the "idealist" maxim:"I would like to change the world"... ~:cheers:

[Papewaio]

Money is an idea, a note is only worth as much as both people believe in it.

[Soulforged]

Yes you're right, but i talked of money so i don't have to refer to "the product of work" every time. Money can be changed, but it doesn't must to in socialism-communism. Anyway the "money" is supported actually for some real objects. Firstly it was gold (it still is) but now is used the amount of dolars as reserve. Anything that you take in history surged from ideas, will be supported by real, material things, i'm sure there's no exceptions because it would be alogical.
In any case saying money deserves money will be pretty absurd.