Capitalism or Communism? (1 Viewer)

[loquasagacious]

Good if you forgot a packed lunch on a moon-landing though....

 

[HotShot]

Actually, Hayek's The Road to Serfdom explained a million reasons why Communism is not good in theory.

Secondly, a theory is something that can be applied in practice: a good theory is one that can be empirically tested and provide results predicted in the hypotheses. Therefore communism is not good in theory, it's a hopeless theory.

It would be like arguing that the moon is made of cheese. Is that good in theory, but bad in practice?

I am sure there dozens of other books that explain why communism was and is good in theory. just read Marx or Trosky work -lol.

It depends on how well the theory can be applied - to determine if it works good in practice or not. That was problem with Communism for it to be applied there were a lot of restriction and there was a process that needed to be followed carefully. When Russia and other countres adopted communism they didnt follow these prerequisites - and rushed it and it screwed them up big time.

I mean Marx - said it was ideal for countries like Germany and Britain to adopt communism - but it never happened mainly because the USSR got there first and created a bad name for it.

Russia never followed communism - although they thought they did. It was personal interests and ideology of Lenin/Stalin later on that was more important than the country itself. Thus Leninism and Stalinism. Thats why the Trotsky - the jew was exiled (along with a host of other reasons) as he was a Marxist - and a tightass that couldnt work well with his peers - he realised Russia wasnt going in the right path.

 

[Comrade nathan]

In a communist system, all the means of production are owned by the government, so this means that the people are only able to trade consumption goods. The price of production goods is not determined by exchange (the best way we know to set the price), but rather it is arbitrarily set (taking a stab in the dark) by the government.

Yeah that is how the USSR set prices, they took a stab in the dark. Never mind the huge state bureaucracy, the national, regional, state and local planners made up of thousands of economists and representives of the workers, they had nothing to do with determining the price in regards to overall production and needs of the people in the USSR.

You idiot.

 

[banco55]

Yeah that is how the USSR set prices, they took a stab in the dark. Never mind the huge state bureaucracy, the national, regional, state and local planners made up of thousands of economists and representives of the workers, they had nothing to do with determining the price in regards to overall production and needs of the people in the USSR.

You idiot.

They obviously didn't do a very good job of it because there were shortages of everything, long lines, poor quality etc.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

what happens when changes in spending occurs

[Devils Advocate]
I thought the idea would be that the state tightly regulates buying habits, changing tastes etc minimising such fluctuations in demand.
[/Devils Advocate]

 

[bshoc]

That and the fact not a single country has praticed communism in a proper manner.

No what happned in the USSR, China, Cambodia etc. is the "proper manner." The logical consequences of applying the writings of Marx and Engels to the real world.

 

[Comrade nathan]

When price can't change to reflect changing circumstances, your entire system will collapse

Prices did change in regards to the over national economy. The actually "collapse" of the Soviet Union occured when revisionists began deStalinisation and then later democratisation. Which lead to local planners changing prices without national authority. These changes were based on who was buying what. If the USSR had open to foreign investment in it's final years and it's last reforms under Gorbachev, it probally could have kept it's bureaucracy and socialist welfare system, much like China has done and continued to do since the end of the Cultural Revolution.

No what happned in the USSR, China, Cambodia etc. is the "proper manner." The logical consequences of applying the writings of Marx and Engels to the real world.

I am not sure what people actuallyexpected, or what they get from reading Marx and Engels. Marx and Engels clearly state 1) Class warfare is violent. 2) This warfare leads to the Dictatorship of the Proleterait. Under this dictatorship of class, the proletariat oppress the bourgeois.

Through all the Bureacracy created by Lenin and Stalin, under such system they adhered to thoose main points. It is very clear that the bourgeois were oppressed, they could no longer act as a class to buy labour. Under these systems the proletariat greatly improved in political power and living standards.

I can not see how anyone gains a rosey Utopian picture from reading Marx and Engels. The ultimate end is rosey, and while the proleteriat greatly improve their position, we are talking about 3rd world countries. In these countries making any decision involves great risks. Such as trying to liquidate the Kulaks, resulted in large deaths of peasants, which perhapds could have been minimised in the following famine. Or the conducting a "Great Leap Forward" in feudal China, prone to corruption and some of the worst droughts and floods in the world, there were large risks. However in this worst case scenerios the end result was and industrialised USSR, and China's population able to feed itself.

A reading of Marx and Engels points to conflict. The bourgeois have nothing to gain, the have everything to lose in fact by Communism. The question is rather stupid, which is better capitalism and communism. The question is relative to different social classes.

 

[The Brucemaster]

They obviously didn't do a very good job of it because there were shortages of everything, long lines, poor quality etc.

That was probably more to do with the fact that they were spending 13% of their GDP on the military from about the time of the Vietnam war onwards rather than poor economic management due to Communism.

No what happened in the USSR, China, Cambodia etc. is the 'proper manner'. The logical consequences of applying the writings of Marx and Engels to the real world.

Actually that's not true.

The implementation of Communism in Russia and China was largely different and changed over time. Lenin recognised the reliance of the Soviet economy on foreign investment, especially trade, thus he made several concessions to his original Communist stance of economic isolationism. Even Stalin's original form of Communism was not 'pure Communism' in an economic sense for the same reason.

As for China, the Sino-Soviet split of 1961 was entirely based around Mao Zedong's 'margarine Marxism' as it was termed by Lenin. China actually broke away from the Communist Bloc as a result of the differing interpretations the two leaders had of Communism.

 

[bshoc]

Actually that's not true.

The implementation of Communism in Russia and China was largely different and changed over time. Lenin recognised the reliance of the Soviet economy on foreign investment, especially trade, thus he made several concessions to his original Communist stance of economic isolationism. Even Stalin's original form of Communism was not 'pure Communism' in an economic sense for the same reason.

As for China, the Sino-Soviet split of 1961 was entirely based around Mao Zedong's 'margarine Marxism' as it was termed by Lenin. China actually broke away from the Communist Bloc as a result of the differing interpretations the two leaders had of Communism.

Exact method of application is rather irrelevant, given that results were largely the same ie. poverty, oppressive government and a basketcase economy.

 

[bshoc]

I am not sure what people actuallyexpected, or what they get from reading Marx and Engels. Marx and Engels clearly state 1) Class warfare is violent. 2) This warfare leads to the Dictatorship of the Proleterait. Under this dictatorship of class, the proletariat oppress the bourgeois.

Through all the Bureacracy created by Lenin and Stalin, under such system they adhered to thoose main points. It is very clear that the bourgeois were oppressed, they could no longer act as a class to buy labour. Under these systems the proletariat greatly improved in political power and living standards.

In the long term? Which proleteriat continued to enjoy increasing living standards past a short term period time? Proletariat in France or Britian, or proletariat in the USSR, Poland or Yugoslavia?

Its also inevitable that those who wield the greatest power after a revolution essentially become a new ruling upper class, much like what Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin became.

I can not see how anyone gains a rosey Utopian picture from reading Marx and Engels. The ultimate end is rosey, and while the proleteriat greatly improve their position, we are talking about 3rd world countries. In these countries making any decision involves great risks. Such as trying to liquidate the Kulaks, resulted in large deaths of peasants, which perhapds could have been minimised in the following famine. Or the conducting a "Great Leap Forward" in feudal China, prone to corruption and some of the worst droughts and floods in the world, there were large risks. However in this worst case scenerios the end result was and industrialised USSR, and China's population able to feed itself.

A reading of Marx and Engels points to conflict. The bourgeois have nothing to gain, the have everything to lose in fact by Communism. The question is rather stupid, which is better capitalism and communism. The question is relative to different social classes.

Communism is worst for all social classes - as with the examples noted above, all equally poor might not be relative but it is still poverty.

 

[HotShot]

Prices did change in regards to the over national economy. The actually "collapse" of the Soviet Union occured when revisionists began deStalinisation and then later democratisation. Which lead to local planners changing prices without national authority. These changes were based on who was buying what. If the USSR had open to foreign investment in it's final years and it's last reforms under Gorbachev, it probally could have kept it's bureaucracy and socialist welfare system, much like China has done and continued to do since the end of the Cultural Revolution.



I am not sure what people actuallyexpected, or what they get from reading Marx and Engels. Marx and Engels clearly state 1) Class warfare is violent. 2) This warfare leads to the Dictatorship of the Proleterait. Under this dictatorship of class, the proletariat oppress the bourgeois.

Through all the Bureacracy created by Lenin and Stalin, under such system they adhered to thoose main points. It is very clear that the bourgeois were oppressed, they could no longer act as a class to buy labour. Under these systems the proletariat greatly improved in political power and living standards.

I can not see how anyone gains a rosey Utopian picture from reading Marx and Engels. The ultimate end is rosey, and while the proleteriat greatly improve their position, we are talking about 3rd world countries. In these countries making any decision involves great risks. Such as trying to liquidate the Kulaks, resulted in large deaths of peasants, which perhapds could have been minimised in the following famine. Or the conducting a "Great Leap Forward" in feudal China, prone to corruption and some of the worst droughts and floods in the world, there were large risks. However in this worst case scenerios the end result was and industrialised USSR, and China's population able to feed itself.

A reading of Marx and Engels points to conflict. The bourgeois have nothing to gain, the have everything to lose in fact by Communism. The question is rather stupid, which is better capitalism and communism. The question is relative to different social classes.

did u do a Phd on communism or marxism? u seem to know quite a bit on communism.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Exact method of application is rather irrelevant, given that results were largely the same ie. poverty, oppressive government and a basketcase economy.

Well that begs the question of why you would make the point in the first place.

Both systems have their faults and the success of either one largely depends on the amount of support given to it by the populace.
Communism will obviously not work in Australia because we have been a capitalist nation for so long and it would require a massive and in all likelihood destructive change in the entire structure of our society.
It may have worked, however, under Allende in Chile, where the people democratically elected a Communist leader.

Capitalism, on the other hand, has the tendency to neglect social issues in favour of economic growth and financial prosperity. Business interests can take precedent over the interests of people, organisations, institutions etc. the Cross City Tunnel and the logging of Tasmanian forests are two examples that spring to mind.

 

[banco55]

Well that begs the question of why you would make the point in the first place.

Both systems have their faults and the success of either one largely depends on the amount of support given to it by the populace.
Communism will obviously not work in Australia because we have been a capitalist nation for so long and it would require a massive and in all likelihood destructive change in the entire structure of our society.
It may have worked, however, under Allende in Chile, where the people democratically elected a Communist leader.

Capitalism, on the other hand, has the tendency to neglect social issues in favour of economic growth and financial prosperity. Business interests can take precedent over the interests of people, organisations, institutions etc. the Cross City Tunnel and the logging of Tasmanian forests are two examples that spring to mind.

To use a shopworn phrase communism can never work the way marx envisioned it due its internal contradictions. To implement communism you inevitably have to have a dimunition of economic freedom and a centralization of state power yet by some sort of osmosis the state is meant to gradually wither away.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

In the long term? Which proleteriat continued to enjoy increasing living standards past a short term period time? Proletariat in France or Britian, or proletariat in the USSR, Poland or Yugoslavia?

Bad comparisons, lets instead look at USSR v Russia now - A clear case can be made that the poletariat had it better under the USSR given that with the collapse of the soviet union came the disappearance of large numbers of the middle class and the emergence of a wide gap between the rich and the poor.

It is clear imo that wealth wise the middle class will have it better under a socialist system...

But freedom-wise? General standard of living wise? I'd definately come down against socialism.

 

[P_Dilemma]

"Anyone who isn't a socialist before 30 has no heart. Anyone who is a socialist after 30 has no head."

-P_D

 

[neo o]

"Anyone who isn't a socialist before 30 has no heart. Anyone who is a socialist after 30 has no head."

-P_D

Misquoting Churchill on an internet forum doesn't make you look intelligent.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Misquoting Churchill on an internet forum doesn't make you look intelligent.

But neither does mis-attributing quotes.

 

[neo o]

But neither does mis-attributing quotes.

Lucky I didn't then. The phrase has been used by alot of people including Churchill.

 

[toadstooltown]

Communism does take away some freedoms from society but it's not as if everyone is free to do what ever they want under capitalism. New sedition laws and the US 'Patriot Act' are hardly something that give people more freedom.

One of the major flaws with Capitalism is that while it does allow people to make lots of money and go from riches to rags, few do. The same way in which the lottery can make some very few people exceedingly rich, but keep everyone else the same. There always will be many low-paid low-skilled labour / tedious jobs under capitalism. Simply off-shoring some to Taiwanese sweatshops might take them out of Australia, but they're still there. Australia also does have a lot of poverty and the rich-poor gap is growing and growing. As a country we're lucky to have vast mineral resources and not have to export tertiary goods, which most Australians couldn't provide.

Another problem is that under a free-market economy, a company's only responsibility is too its stock-holders. Banks have financed some of the worst human and environmental atrocities to have happened. If it costs more, a big company won't do something an environmentally friendly way. The only reason they would pick it is to protect themself from law-suits or if their actions could prompt a boycott. Under a system driven and directed by short-term gain and selfishness, not great leaps in civilisation can take place. Labour started renewable energies research and upon the Howard government taking office it was completely scrapped, which is detrimental to Australia’s economy long-term, though it might be beneficial long term.

With capitalism people are always going to exploited. The top of the pyramid exploiting those beneath, and those the people below etc. But there is a bottom and they cop it the hardest. The notion that one can just 'self-employ' hardly applies to the vast majority of cases A few disgruntled and low payed bank workers can't really start up their own bank. The lower are exploited so that a good or service can be provided cheaply. As morally perfect as a self-owned business may be, it can't compete with a massive and heartless company that can provide the same service for half the price. Under the new IR laws I just got my pay lowered by $5 and if I didn't accept the new pay I would be fired that day. I can't really go and start up my own business to compete. The only people benefited were the company bosses.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Lucky I didn't then. The phrase has been used by alot of people including Churchill.

He would have been calling himself heartless and brainless.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Churchill#Misattributions