Is Communism / Sociolism the wave of the future?

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Communism and socialism has nothing to do with it. It has to do with Capitalism, which would not exist without Democracy. The United States is making it possible for those nations to build up their economies.

Can't a benevolent dictator allow Capitalism in his country?

economic systems is in a perfect world is completely government independant. Yuo could easily have a communist republic or a capitalist monarchy. Unfortunately due to corruption caused by power, obviously 1 system favors but doesnt necessarily require an particualr government type. Of course in a perfect world, communism would actually work and be incredibly efficent.

 

[Vic]

Economic and political systems are inherently interdependent. This is because the state controls the monetary supply and depends upon the economy for its funding. Think of an economy as being like a large public market with lots of independent vendors and the state as the owner of the marketplace. Obviously, the owner of the marketplace has a vested interest in establishing rules of conduct and administration for the market that also encourage the highest level of business, and a political government is hardly any different.

So there is no "perfect world" where communism would actually work or even be efficient, or where economic and political systems can be completely independent. The very idea is so ridiculous as to be laughable. If it were that way, it would be inefficienct (duplication of systems) and thus imperfect by definition.

To mix a bunch of metaphors, the appeal of communism in the west is that some people (especially young people) look out on an imperfect world and imagine the grass would be greener on the other side. It's not, and history proves that, so you start to hear apologist bullsh!t about "well, in a perfect world... " Sorry, not there either. No matter what you do or try, the world will always be imperfect, and will always fight your every attempt to mold it into your own personal vision of perfection. In the end, you're just being selfish for refusing to accept people for who and what they are.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: Vic
Economic and political systems are inherently interdependent. This is because the state controls the monetary supply and depends upon the economy for its funding. Think of an economy as being like a large public market with lots of independent vendors and the state as the owner of the marketplace. Obviously, the owner of the marketplace has a vested interest in establishing rules of conduct and administration for the market that also encourage the highest level of business, and a political government is hardly any different.

So there is no "perfect world" where communism would actually work or even be efficient, or where economic and political systems can be completely independent. The very idea is so ridiculous as to be laughable. If it were that way, it would be inefficienct (duplication of systems) and thus imperfect by definition.

To mix a bunch of metaphors, the appeal of communism in the west is that some people (especially young people) look out on an imperfect world and imagine the grass would be greener on the other side. It's not, and history proves that, so you start to hear apologist bullsh!t about "well, in a perfect world... " Sorry, not there either. No matter what you do or try, the world will always be imperfect, and will always fight your every attempt to mold it into your own personal vision of perfection. In the end, you're just being selfish for refusing to accept people for who and what they are.

I wasnt saying any "apologist bullsh!t" I've always argued against communism and for the fact that self interest, greed and corruption in the human nature.

I was presenting an devils advocate view of a therotical situation.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: Vic
Economic and political systems are inherently interdependent. This is because the state controls the monetary supply and depends upon the economy for its funding. Think of an economy as being like a large public market with lots of independent vendors and the state as the owner of the marketplace. Obviously, the owner of the marketplace has a vested interest in establishing rules of conduct and administration for the market that also encourage the highest level of business, and a political government is hardly any different.

So there is no "perfect world" where communism would actually work or even be efficient, or where economic and political systems can be completely independent. The very idea is so ridiculous as to be laughable. If it were that way, it would be inefficienct (duplication of systems) and thus imperfect by definition.

To mix a bunch of metaphors, the appeal of communism in the west is that some people (especially young people) look out on an imperfect world and imagine the grass would be greener on the other side. It's not, and history proves that, so you start to hear apologist bullsh!t about "well, in a perfect world... " Sorry, not there either. No matter what you do or try, the world will always be imperfect, and will always fight your every attempt to mold it into your own personal vision of perfection. In the end, you're just being selfish for refusing to accept people for who and what they are.

I wasnt saying any "apologist bullsh!t" I've always argued against communism and for the fact that self interest, greed and corruption in the human nature.

I was presenting an devils advocate view of a therotical situation.

It is 'apologist bullsh!t' to simply repeat the claim that communism would work in a perfect world. It is flwaed in theory and even in a 'perfect' world it would bring out the worst in leaders and least efficiency in economy.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Vic
Communism and other authoritarian governments will all eventually fail economically because they are horribly inefficient. The so-called "invisible hand" always exists, and the laws of nature cannot be repealed.

Marxism is -- and always will be -- a pipe dream failure. The basis of his economic theories is that market values could be replaced by a fixed system of value based on labor. As though a pile of dog sh!t could be worth the same as gold. It can never be practiced "properly" because it has no actual basis in reality.

It's not authoritarian, as is no economic system, but thanks for spreading the fear-filled propaganda McCarthy style, as if this were the 50s.

It's not a fixed system, but the value is derived from labor and material, and your follow-up statement about comparing ****** to gold just shows your lack of understanding--as value is determined by labor and material, the material is only one aspect of how much something would be worth as a product.

But please, continue in your strange way of thinking about economic theories that have an "actual basis in reality". But I would also like to hear how you think wealth is created.

How can anyone explain economics to someone who thinks the economy is zero sum :roll:

it's not "zero-sum". wealth is created by the application of labor to material. I'm still waiting for my "pro-capitalist" explaination of wealth creation.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: Vic
Economic and political systems are inherently interdependent. This is because the state controls the monetary supply and depends upon the economy for its funding. Think of an economy as being like a large public market with lots of independent vendors and the state as the owner of the marketplace. Obviously, the owner of the marketplace has a vested interest in establishing rules of conduct and administration for the market that also encourage the highest level of business, and a political government is hardly any different.

So there is no "perfect world" where communism would actually work or even be efficient, or where economic and political systems can be completely independent. The very idea is so ridiculous as to be laughable. If it were that way, it would be inefficienct (duplication of systems) and thus imperfect by definition.

To mix a bunch of metaphors, the appeal of communism in the west is that some people (especially young people) look out on an imperfect world and imagine the grass would be greener on the other side. It's not, and history proves that, so you start to hear apologist bullsh!t about "well, in a perfect world... " Sorry, not there either. No matter what you do or try, the world will always be imperfect, and will always fight your every attempt to mold it into your own personal vision of perfection. In the end, you're just being selfish for refusing to accept people for who and what they are.

I wasnt saying any "apologist bullsh!t" I've always argued against communism and for the fact that self interest, greed and corruption in the human nature.

I was presenting an devils advocate view of a therotical situation.

It is 'apologist bullsh!t' to simply repeat the claim that communism would work in a perfect world. It is flwaed in theory and even in a 'perfect' world it would bring out the worst in leaders and least efficiency in economy.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3...client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial

Definitions of perfect on the Web:

*being complete of its kind and without defect or blemish; "a perfect circle"; "a perfect reproduction"; "perfect happiness"; "perfect manners"; "a perfect specimen"; "a perfect day"

By definition a perfect world would have a civilian population 100% willng to hand economic and many social powers to governemnt and work at maximum efficency for the better of society while the government would be able to sidestep corruption and work for the betterment of the governed.

Of course I will repeat again we do not live in a perfect world and ytherefore Capitalism and Democracy/Republicanism is as close as we can get to minimal corruption and maximum efficency.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Vic
Communism and other authoritarian governments will all eventually fail economically because they are horribly inefficient. The so-called "invisible hand" always exists, and the laws of nature cannot be repealed.

Marxism is -- and always will be -- a pipe dream failure. The basis of his economic theories is that market values could be replaced by a fixed system of value based on labor. As though a pile of dog sh!t could be worth the same as gold. It can never be practiced "properly" because it has no actual basis in reality.

It's not authoritarian, as is no economic system, but thanks for spreading the fear-filled propaganda McCarthy style, as if this were the 50s.

It's not a fixed system, but the value is derived from labor and material, and your follow-up statement about comparing ****** to gold just shows your lack of understanding--as value is determined by labor and material, the material is only one aspect of how much something would be worth as a product.

But please, continue in your strange way of thinking about economic theories that have an "actual basis in reality". But I would also like to hear how you think wealth is created.

How can anyone explain economics to someone who thinks the economy is zero sum :roll:

it's not "zero-sum". wealth is created by the application of labor to material. I'm still waiting for my "pro-capitalist" explaination of wealth creation.

You were already given it many posts back:

Originally posted by: Vic
Wealth is created by labor creating capital, and that capital being found valuable to another in a free marketplace.

Material is not required for the creation of wealth. Intangibles, like creative ideas, arts, and techology, as examples, all work just as well.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: Vic
Economic and political systems are inherently interdependent. This is because the state controls the monetary supply and depends upon the economy for its funding. Think of an economy as being like a large public market with lots of independent vendors and the state as the owner of the marketplace. Obviously, the owner of the marketplace has a vested interest in establishing rules of conduct and administration for the market that also encourage the highest level of business, and a political government is hardly any different.

So there is no "perfect world" where communism would actually work or even be efficient, or where economic and political systems can be completely independent. The very idea is so ridiculous as to be laughable. If it were that way, it would be inefficienct (duplication of systems) and thus imperfect by definition.

To mix a bunch of metaphors, the appeal of communism in the west is that some people (especially young people) look out on an imperfect world and imagine the grass would be greener on the other side. It's not, and history proves that, so you start to hear apologist bullsh!t about "well, in a perfect world... " Sorry, not there either. No matter what you do or try, the world will always be imperfect, and will always fight your every attempt to mold it into your own personal vision of perfection. In the end, you're just being selfish for refusing to accept people for who and what they are.

I wasnt saying any "apologist bullsh!t" I've always argued against communism and for the fact that self interest, greed and corruption in the human nature.

I was presenting an devils advocate view of a therotical situation.

It is 'apologist bullsh!t' to simply repeat the claim that communism would work in a perfect world. It is flwaed in theory and even in a 'perfect' world it would bring out the worst in leaders and least efficiency in economy.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3...client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial

Definitions of perfect on the Web:

*being complete of its kind and without defect or blemish; "a perfect circle"; "a perfect reproduction"; "perfect happiness"; "perfect manners"; "a perfect specimen"; "a perfect day"

By definition a perfect world would have a civilian population 100% willng to hand economic and many social powers to governemnt and work at maximum efficency for the better of society while the government would be able to sidestep corruption and work for the betterment of the governed.

Of course I will repeat again we do not live in a perfect world and ytherefore Capitalism and Democracy/Republicanism is as close as we can get to minimal corruption and maximum efficency.

Correction: we do not live in your personal opinion of a perfect world. I'm not necessarily arguing that the world is perfect, just that your argument is meaningless. The world is what it is, and perfection is a matter of opinion.

 

[destrekor]

im not sure if this has been stated, but....
it should be known that the United States version of democracy is not the best example of democracy for most other countries. the way our country is set up, it works for us.
its because of the number of states and the individual power each one has. most other countries do not have 'states' or don't have the same idea of self-governing for the states.
our system almost tries to give each state, almost like mini-countries, completely independent. but not to the full extent of being completely independent, which is a good thing.
its the same reason why so many people hate the electoral college but can't seem to grasp why its like it is. for the sheer fact that the electoral college tries to give each state as equal of a voice as possible when voting. it may not seem like popular opinion, but each state is almost always going to swing one way, but some states just don't have the population of others. now, we can't give each state 5 votes in the electoral college, so the number of votes is determined by population of the state. we all know that. but it seems nobody wants to understand that each state, as an independent state, is supposed to have a voice that is equal, regardless of other states population.
i personally like the electoral college because it does what it was created to do.
sorry for my rant, but it kind of goes hand in hand with the argument of federalism and the independence of states.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Vic

Wealth is created by labor creating capital, and that capital being found valuable to another in a free marketplace.

Yes, I agree, and that only goes to justify the main theme of communism--that labor is what generates wealth, hence it is the means by which every commodity obtains its value.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: Strk
All of your examples only stand to promote capitalism, since all those countries were rubbish before they implemented free market reforms.

Yes, they're embracing capitalism as an economic system but still rejecting "democracy" as a political system. Do you see the point I'm making?

our hope with china is that as people gain economic power they'll demand political power. hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, the communist party will ride off into the sunset.



as for the US sinking, what crack are you smoking?

 

[91TTZ]

Both India and China are making big leaps right now only because they are completely ignoring the 90% of their population that is living in poverty. They're focusing on the elite in an attempt to catch up to the USA, but they haven't yet paid the massive price of equaling out the standard of living.

If they had to foot the bill for their poor the way the USA does, they wouldn't be making much.

 

[nageov3t]

the US was on the brink of socialism in the 30's.

it didn't happen then (though the New Deal resulted in the socialism-lite government we have today with programs like medicare and social security), so I can't see it ever happening unless something crazy happens and we descend into a new depression era.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Vic
Communism and other authoritarian governments will all eventually fail economically because they are horribly inefficient. The so-called "invisible hand" always exists, and the laws of nature cannot be repealed.

Marxism is -- and always will be -- a pipe dream failure. The basis of his economic theories is that market values could be replaced by a fixed system of value based on labor. As though a pile of dog sh!t could be worth the same as gold. It can never be practiced "properly" because it has no actual basis in reality.

It's not authoritarian, as is no economic system, but thanks for spreading the fear-filled propaganda McCarthy style, as if this were the 50s.

It's not a fixed system, but the value is derived from labor and material, and your follow-up statement about comparing ****** to gold just shows your lack of understanding--as value is determined by labor and material, the material is only one aspect of how much something would be worth as a product.

But please, continue in your strange way of thinking about economic theories that have an "actual basis in reality". But I would also like to hear how you think wealth is created.

How can anyone explain economics to someone who thinks the economy is zero sum :roll:

it's not "zero-sum". wealth is created by the application of labor to material. I'm still waiting for my "pro-capitalist" explaination of wealth creation.

your posts that i've read today have demonstrated your lack of a clue when it comes to economics. value is not determined by labor and material, value is determined by what the market will pay. what people think it is worth. if you expend $20 of labor and materials to make something worth only $19.99 to anyone else, you aren't making something that is worthwhile.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: Strk
All of your examples only stand to promote capitalism, since all those countries were rubbish before they implemented free market reforms.

Yes, they're embracing capitalism as an economic system but still rejecting "democracy" as a political system. Do you see the point I'm making?

our hope with china is that as people gain economic power they'll demand political power. hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, the communist party will ride off into the sunset.



as for the US sinking, what crack are you smoking?

In the next 100 years the US will sink several meters due to global warming, mostly due to Henry Ford, who was a fascist - which I'm told is even worse than a communist. I am smoking meth.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Vic

Wealth is created by labor creating capital, and that capital being found valuable to another in a free marketplace.

Yes, I agree, and that only goes to justify the main theme of communism--that labor is what generates wealth, hence it is the means by which every commodity obtains its value.

So if I labor to create a heaping pile of sh!t, then that has value simply because of my labor? I used a similar analogy before, and you don't seem to have gotten it. Labor creates value, but a thing does not have value just because labor created it. Every commodity obtains its value because someone perceives its value enough to pay that value, and for that reason alone. It is not enough simply to labor, but labor in a manner that it is beneficial to others.

In other words, if you wish to create wealth for yourself, then you must labor in some way to create value for other people. That is THE main theme of capitalism, the so-called "invisible hand."

Communism is IMO a complex lie for deluded selfish people who seek wealth for themselves without providing value to others, i.e. they want to steal. "Sharing the wealth" at gunpoint, which is why communist governments are always authoritarian. The detriment to freedom is one thing (and serious enough IMO), but the inherent inefficiencies involved in the extremely complex (and certain to be unfair regardless) administration of this forced equality are absolutely crushing both to the environment and living standards. This is because, in communist systems, maintaining at least the charade of this forced equality takes precedence over everything else.

Read carefully: communism doesn't work. It never will and never could. It is a disaster. Go out and work to provide value to others, in that manner find value for yourself, and hopefully you will forget about this crack pipe-induced nightmare.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: Strk
All of your examples only stand to promote capitalism, since all those countries were rubbish before they implemented free market reforms.

Yes, they're embracing capitalism as an economic system but still rejecting "democracy" as a political system. Do you see the point I'm making?

our hope with china is that as people gain economic power they'll demand political power. hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, the communist party will ride off into the sunset.



as for the US sinking, what crack are you smoking?

In the next 100 years the US will sink several meters due to global warming, mostly due to Henry Ford, who was a fascist - which I'm told is even worse than a communist. I am smoking meth.

Ford was a capitalist. He paid his workers more than twice what anyone else paid theirs and provided benefits and shorter working hours long before anyone else did (even those that were unionized, which Ford was not). Late in his life, he did dabble with fascism, but that mostly out of ignorance (there was a big red scare in the '20s and '30s that briefly caused fascism to look attractive to those who really didn't know what it truly was) and because he was constantly being attacked by socialists seeking to take control of the plants that he had built.

And we're not going to sink because of global warming. Public awareness will generate market pressures to deal with the issue in time. So be thankful we have at least a semblance of capitalism in this country, because if we were communist, the government-controlled media and scientists wouldn't even allow us to know that the issue existed.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: mwmorph
<snip>

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3...client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial

Definitions of perfect on the Web:

*being complete of its kind and without defect or blemish; "a perfect circle"; "a perfect reproduction"; "perfect happiness"; "perfect manners"; "a perfect specimen"; "a perfect day"

By definition a perfect world would have a civilian population 100% willng to hand economic and many social powers to governemnt and work at maximum efficency for the better of society while the government would be able to sidestep corruption and work for the betterment of the governed.

Of course I will repeat again we do not live in a perfect world and ytherefore Capitalism and Democracy/Republicanism is as close as we can get to minimal corruption and maximum efficency.

By that definition, every form of government is perfect, from anarcho-capitalism to communal fascism.

 

[Taggart]

people joke about 'accidentally clicking on P&N'

I REALLY thought I did for a few seconds :shocked:

BTW, the OP is an idiot because he says the US economy 'continues to skid downward' (interest rates would be going DOWN if that were true you dumb fvcker)

 

[fitzov]

In other words, if you wish to create wealth for yourself, then you must labor in some way to create value for other people. That is THE main theme of capitalism, the so-called "invisible hand."

You're deluding yourself. Supply and demand does not explain the creation of wealth, labor does, and that is the explanation that Marxist economics gives--not supply side economics. Also, it is the only explanation that makes sense. We agree that wealth is not an unchanging pie, but we disagree as to what increases it. You say: if someone perceives that it is worth more than I have produced it for, then I have made wealth. But you are wrong. All you have done is shown where your profit has come from--another person's pocket. That is not creation, it is simply moving one commodity from one place to another. Labor, on the other hand, does explain the creation of wealth, because it involves the combination of at least two commodities--labor and material.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Vic
Communism and other authoritarian governments will all eventually fail economically because they are horribly inefficient. The so-called "invisible hand" always exists, and the laws of nature cannot be repealed.

Marxism is -- and always will be -- a pipe dream failure. The basis of his economic theories is that market values could be replaced by a fixed system of value based on labor. As though a pile of dog sh!t could be worth the same as gold. It can never be practiced "properly" because it has no actual basis in reality.

It's not authoritarian, as is no economic system, but thanks for spreading the fear-filled propaganda McCarthy style, as if this were the 50s.

It's not a fixed system, but the value is derived from labor and material, and your follow-up statement about comparing ****** to gold just shows your lack of understanding--as value is determined by labor and material, the material is only one aspect of how much something would be worth as a product.

But please, continue in your strange way of thinking about economic theories that have an "actual basis in reality". But I would also like to hear how you think wealth is created.

How can anyone explain economics to someone who thinks the economy is zero sum :roll:

it's not "zero-sum". wealth is created by the application of labor to material. I'm still waiting for my "pro-capitalist" explaination of wealth creation.

your posts that i've read today have demonstrated your lack of a clue when it comes to economics. value is not determined by labor and material, value is determined by what the market will pay. what people think it is worth. if you expend $20 of labor and materials to make something worth only $19.99 to anyone else, you aren't making something that is worthwhile.

ah yes, your understanding of economics is so great that you confuse value with price.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov

In other words, if you wish to create wealth for yourself, then you must labor in some way to create value for other people. That is THE main theme of capitalism, the so-called "invisible hand."

You're deluding yourself. Supply and demand does not explain the creation of wealth, labor does, and that is the explanation that Marxist economics gives--not supply side economics. Also, it is the only explanation that makes sense. We agree that wealth is not an unchanging pie, but we disagree as to what increases it. You say: if someone perceives that it is worth more than I have produced it for, then I have made wealth. But you are wrong. All you have done is shown where your profit has come from--another person's pocket. That is not creation, it is simply moving one commodity from one place to another. Labor, on the other hand, does explain the creation of wealth, because it involves the combination of at least two commodities--labor and material.

What material is involved when service labor creates wealth?

What wealth is created when you use your labor to dig a hole only to fill it back up again, providing no value to anyone else?

If a person produces something, and another person finds it to be more valuable than the person who produced it, and is will to pay for that value, in what fashion does the profit that the producer acquires in a free marketplace somehow become taking from another person's pocket, or somehow immoral, as you imply? Moving commodities from one place to another is the very basis of any economy. If I labor to produce something that no one, not even myself, is able to find any value in, than I would have simply wasted my time and effort, not created any wealth. The need for efficiency dictates that the wealth of labor be dictated by valuation in a free and open marketplace.

Who is deluding himself?

edit: here's my advice to you if you want to discuss this topic any further with me. Get a degree in economics and finance law, work 11 years in the banking and finance industries, then get back to me. Until then, kindly STFU with your known-to-be-false Marxist rhetoric.

edit2: btw, I am not and never was arguing supply-side economics. I am arguing Austrian school free trade capitalism.

 

[fitzov]

here's my advice to you if you want to discuss this topic any further with me. Get a degree in economics and finance law, work 11 years in the banking and finance industries, then get back to me. Until then, kindly STFU with your known-to-be-false Marxist rhetoric.

lol...read an introductory textbook in logic and lookup ad hominem--that's the fallacy you just used to support your as-yet unexplained creation of wealth by shifiting commodities.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: mwmorph
<snip>

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3...client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial

Definitions of perfect on the Web:

*being complete of its kind and without defect or blemish; "a perfect circle"; "a perfect reproduction"; "perfect happiness"; "perfect manners"; "a perfect specimen"; "a perfect day"

By definition a perfect world would have a civilian population 100% willng to hand economic and many social powers to governemnt and work at maximum efficency for the better of society while the government would be able to sidestep corruption and work for the betterment of the governed.

Of course I will repeat again we do not live in a perfect world and ytherefore Capitalism and Democracy/Republicanism is as close as we can get to minimal corruption and maximum efficency.

By that definition, every form of government is perfect, from anarcho-capitalism to communal fascism.

?

In my view of a perfect world, any form of economic policy or government would work since everyone would look out for everyone else, but I did not say or infer communism/totaliarianism as the perfect goverment or economic system anywhere.

 

[OSX]

Socialism + Democracy would be rather interesting. Failing that, reregulating the market FTW!