CommunismVsCapitilism

[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. . 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.

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

[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.

[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.