Communism

[ThetaOrionis01]

I was talking about the 'theory' of capitalism - supply and demand, profit and loss - perhaps you could outline what you mean by 'capitalism'?

[draighox]

Well, as far as I know, it's about having right to your property, being able to establish a private company and use free market.

[Zmid]

No, sorry, can't agree with that. Short-sighted and very much on the naive side? Yes. Evil? No.

 

It's evil because attempting to put it into place will inevitably cause massive harm. Now that we know the consequences, it can safely be judged evil. Anyone ignoring history and claiming that communism works and is a good idea is evil.

 

Ignoring history? How? There has never been a country that has followed the true ideals of communism. As I said, the USSR following Stalin's death was the closest we ever got, but even that was a corrupted form of communism which ultimately failed partly due to that corruption.

 

Secondly, does this show a problem with this idea, or a problem with human nature? I'd say the latter.

 

The idea. Human nature is as it has been for thousands of years, for all of recorded history. This is just the way we are and always will be, and you just have to deal with that.

 

As long as people continue to think this way, you are correct. One of the major things standing in the way of changing human nature itself is the very idea that it can't be done.

 

The USSR in the period after Stalin died until when it dissolved was the closest to a true communism, but, even then, it was a form of communism corrupted by the legacy of Stalin.

 

A form of true communism that collapsed completely, leaving a ruined economy.

 

No, a corrupted form of communism that collapsed completely. Remember, Russia under Stalin might have called itself a communist state, but it was actually a dictatorship, and that legacy fell across the whole USSR until it dissolved.

 

2) If the reason you cannot work is not recognised as being legitimate, you might still get benefit for a certain period. After that, you either live out of other people's dustbins or you starve.

 

Why should it be any different? If you're too lazy to work, why should someone else do it for you?

 

There's the whole crux of it - 'if you're too lazy to work'. What if it's seen as you being 'too lazy to work', but, in fact, you have an illness? Remember, until fairly recently, illnesses like ME or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome would quite often be diagnosed as 'laziness'. What if you have a recognised illness but the state simply doesn't believe you? What if the state erroneously believes you are faking an injury? What if you cannot work simply because there is no job you are capable of carrying out? What if you cannot work because there is no job, full stop?

 

Well, as far as I know, it's about having right to your property, being able to establish a private company and use free market.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is not capitalism. The very root of the word 'capitalism' more or less says what it's about - 'capital' or money. Basically, the whole principle of capitalism is about making money, however and whenever you can. Yes, you have the right to your own property - as long as someone is willing to sell it to you at a price you can afford. Yes, you can establish a private company - as long as you can afford the setup costs, and that company has to make money to stay in business. Yes, you can use the free market economy, but what that really means is that others can use the methods Theta has already described to minimise costs and undercut you, causing you to lose profit and go out of business, unless you do the same.

 

In essence, capitalism is really about exploitation to make money, both in theory and practice.

[MDRud216]

Communism eh?

 

not great... at all in its real world examples, but just because this economic system has not worked in the past does not meanthat it will never work.

 

The unfortunate thing about communism is that the leader hordes the dough! I think that a ruler that has a bit of empathy and not as much lust for riches could potentially make communism work... but we'll just let whoever that is try it on the other side of the world. Sounds good to me.

 

Capitalism, on a more serious note, is good. Our nation would not be the same without, but I can't decide whether it would be right to take lets say half of Bill Gates' and other enormously wealthy peoples funds and give it to the poor. On one hand there is the fact tha nobody needs an income of more than $1,000,000 a year, but on the other hand is the fact that they earned it.

[draighox]

Yes, you can use the free market economy, but what that really means is that others can use the methods Theta has already described to minimise costs and undercut you, causing you to lose profit and go out of business, unless you do the same.

Of course you have to compete. Without competition there wouldn't be goods of good quality. I don't see exploitation here.

 

but I can't decide whether it would be right to take lets say half of Bill Gates' and other enormously wealthy peoples funds and give it to the poor.

Of course not. It's not theirs. Only Gates can decide what to do with his money, otherwise it would be robbery.

[Malchik]

Of course you have to compete. Without competition there wouldn't be goods of good quality. I don't see exploitation here.

 

But the only way to do this is to pay less to the people who work for you both directly through wages and also by buying your source materials from third world countries where you pay the workers pitiful wages for hours of work.

 

And the rape of countries like Bolivia of their mineral wealth etc. etc. Capitalism is evil in theory as well as practice!

[draighox]

Well, we have nothing better currently.

[Zmid]

Of course you have to compete. Without competition there wouldn't be goods of good quality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not in this type of competition. What this type of competition promotes is goods that are cheap to make, which are generally not of high quality.

[draighox]

But cheap. If you want quality goods, there's always a company, which produces expensive, but good quality goods.

[Zmid]

But cheap. If you want quality goods, there's always a company, which produces expensive, but good quality goods.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly - good quality, but expensive. Again, it's about making money, and, even then, these types of goods are fairly rare. Also, if you do some digging in the background of those goods, you will invariably find that, somewhere along the line, quality had to be sacrificed because it was too expensive.

 

Imagine this - someone comes up with a car that was so reliable, it would never break down, was so comfortable, you could practically sleep in it, was so smooth to drive, you literally felt like you were gliding along the road, was entirely noiseless, could outrace any other car you care to name, could also seat a family of 17, had a bigger boot than a dumper truck, gave off zero emissions, and gave about 1000 mpg, but would cost about £20 million to build each one. How likely do you think it would be that any car company would actually try to start producing them?