Capitalism or Communism? (1 Viewer)

[KarateKid89]

I think that we all agree that the totalitarian regimes of Joseph Stalin, Tito, etc. have negatively impacted on people's view of the communist system and how it was set out by Karl Mark throughout the 1850s and 1860s.

However, in countries that were officially communist, such as the USSR, many positive policies were implemented: - a strong welfare state which protected all from the uncertainties of life; - five-year economic plans, which aimed at modernising agriculture and industrialising the country, thereby catapulating many East European Communist states from the Middle Ages to the Modern Era; - equality between men and women; - a highly educated workforce; - a well-funded health care system.

This just goes to show that, in certain respects, the Soviet world was more ahead than the Western World in areas such as education, health and equality between the sexes.

Hopefully, people will not view communism such a negative light.

 

[withoutaface]

Equity without affluence means nothing, and assuming that equality is a desirable end in and of itself is a fallacy.

 

[Silver Persian]

Equity without affluence means nothing, and assuming that equality is a desirable end in and of itself is a fallacy.

He never said anything about income inequality, and Stalin tripled Russia's GDP between 1928 and 1939.

 

[withoutaface]

- a strong welfare state which protected all from the uncertainties of life
- equality between men and women.
The aims of the above are to lessen the gap between two groups.

And Stalin did that by practically abolishing agriculture, leaving half the population starving. :S

 

[Silver Persian]

- a strong welfare state which protected all from the uncertainties of life
- equality between men and women.
The aims of the above are to lessen the gap between two groups.

And Stalin did that by practically abolishing agriculture, leaving half the population starving. :S

-When he mentioned the welfare state, he wasn't claiming that the equality it brought was in itself a good thing, but rather that it provided stability.
-From my interpretation the equality between men and women he was talking about was a social thing, not economic (I could be taking this the wrong way). There should be social equality between the sexes because otherwise the market will be distorted, resources won't be allocated efficiently, people won't be rewarded according to their productivity etc.
-Stalin didn't abolish agriculture - he spent the late twenties and early thirties collectivising it, which initially had bad consequences, but from the mid 30's onwards grain production grew pretty rapidly.

 

[andrewle2709]

None of those countries are truly communist because the theory has never been realised. I don't think marx's classless utopia will ever exist simply because human nature won't allow it.

Plus, china is "market socialist" now, with heaps of private enterprise and foreign investment. The funny thing is that although its current economic policies hardly reflect marxism, it's still ruled by a communist party plagued with corruption.. they'll probably never be replaced by a democratic government because the population is so divided.

great stuff sammy! mod hist and eco seriously do help!

 

[PoliticalExile]

One of the reasons Communism had any "economy" is that they used slave labor.

The Gulag camp system was for the factores, mines, transportation building, all done with out paying people. It was slave labor and many died.

This is a reference I found that documents the millions killed in the USSR communist so-called economy.

60 million killed in the USSR. 20 million before WW II even started.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

Every economy has it's hurdles, but communication of information is essential to a healthy economy and the USSR just killed 60 million people in an attempt to force an economy, when real economy is on the spirit of the workers.

So we do have to take that into account.

 

[mr EaZy]

Without interest where's the incentive to lend? Islamic economics is also stupid in that its ultimate aim is to ram one group's religion down everyone else's throats, which is unacceptable, even if that group is in the majority.

EDIT: So it also means that employers would have to take time out from doing what they do most effectively (i.e. managing the business) to do manual labour? Doesn't this interfere with efficiency?

Im not an expert in this area, ive only been introduced to it recently, like last semester.

1) you must note that islamic economics is not just about borrowing money- no economy is based on just that

2) You are not putting your imposing your religion on others. in Australia, theres a choice, whether you want to do something ethically or unethically as long as the law allows it. Now ethics is subjective- the question is: do you believe it is ethical or not? In an islamic state, the government will tell people what they do or dont do. The people wont do it because islam says so, but because the govt says so.

3) islamic law is not positive law, its a methodology to law. There are no 1001 rules, its based on principles such as :
a) all humans are born free
b) all laws must amount to something good
c) if put in a position where nothing but evil is possible- take the lesser evil

so when the govt makes a law, the judges will judge these laws- are they compliant with the sharia- but there is a separation of state and religion in that regard

4) in an islamic state, non muslims are exempt from islamic law. in history, the islamic state offered a separate state of law for christians and jews who maintained their own churches and courts

5) MCCA is an islamic bank in NSW and VIC
they won two Aust biz awards
http://www.mcca.com.au/UserFiles/061116 MCCA ABA Press Release.pdf

http://www.mcca.com.au/page.php?id=hirepurchase&product_id=9

6) as to what is the incentive to lend- we dont use the word lend, we say investment- and the benefits are not interests,- they are profits-

ill email MCCA's finance officer whom i met at a dinner, and get a proper answer, this isnt my field of knowledge.

7) Islamic economics, encourages banks, industries and individuals to be socially responsible which is the main aim of sharia's economic policy.

8)
http://www.albalagh.net/Islamic_economics/economy.shtml

9)
http://www.shaykhabdalqadir.com/content/articles/FatwaOnBanking.pdf


10

Equity without affluence means nothing, and assuming that equality is a desirable end in and of itself is a fallacy.
2 Jan 2007 12:21 PM

thats true, a world without affluence is a world of equality- but that is just not possible as there will always be someone who has something another does not, like a better family or a house in a better location- even if the government did its best to make it otherwise...

11) islamic economics strives to create a welfare state- this works into their criminal system too in that a poor guy who steals will prompt the state to question whether it is doing its job or not.


12)

Hopefully, people will not view communism such a negative light.

same here, but it all depends on what people know about these systems and whether or not they have worked before

13)

Singapore's economy is essentially a free market with a few overtly heavy social restrictions.

i agree with that, free speech and democracy are also limited, but it is capitalistic- islamic economics is also based on the free economy.

is communist economics based on free markets? my understanding is that they say that free markets will work in favour of the rich is that right?

 

[mr EaZy]

few more links:

http://www.mcca.com.au/page.php?id=hirepurchase&product_id=9
an example of how islamic borrowing might work- note that islamic law doesnt specify how to borrow- you come up with ways to uphold the purpose or objectives of the law; so if the social studies suggest that a policy is unduly discriminatory- then it ought to be scrapped- but im no expert in this

investing in the stock market- i never read this one yet...
http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2005/01-15July05-Print-Edition/011507200530b.htm

 

[mr EaZy]

EDIT: So it also means that employers would have to take time out from doing what they do most effectively (i.e. managing the business) to do manual labour? Doesn't this interfere with efficiency?

thats not true, please elaborate

 

[cowface]

Socialism and Communism proclaimed to liberate and give workers and peasants freedom.
Capitalism without state intervention promises to liberate and give people freedom from big government.

At the end of the day, they're both oppressive because both ignore/dismiss the human condition.

 

[mr EaZy]

yes, and because both are man made, we all need to be on the look out for alternatives, or define what we already have just as capitalism and communism were redefined following the great depression and the failure of certain communist states.

 

[withoutaface]

Please suck less and stop repeating fallacies such as relative poverty.

Under capitalism a political party can do very little to defend the interests of anything, because by definition a free market is virtually devoid of all government intervention. Let's also remember the fact that the rich are only rich because they make a product that the majority enjoy more than their competitor's, and can be just as easily toppled if the majority decide they wish to cease purchasing it.

 

[zstar]

ahhh the age old question. The problem is there's two types of marxism, The one that marx wrote in his Communist manifesto and the one practised by the so called "socialist" nations from Lenin onwards.

I want to clear up a few things. Communism is the idea and the final stage and the people who strive from Communism are Socialists and secondly no nation has ever implemented marxism correctly, Note that Marx said that a well developed caplitalist industrialised economy is the pre-requisite and after that the oppressed workers will rise up and take control of the economy then attempting to create an egalitarian society however neither Russia, China or any other state was an advanced capitalist country prior to the revolutions and each nation or group has their own way of interpreting marxism. Furthermore we can't use current examples of "Communist" nations as examples because let's face it all these countries relied on the USSR and if the US collapsed tommorow then we in the Capitalist nations would also be in deep shit.


I can write a whole book on this but i'll tell you something the best system is no system, In other words all systems have their advantages and disadvantages so what people should strive for is equality, democracy and prosperity. How we choose to strive for those goals should be upto the individual and suit the national conditions and not be a carbon copy of a foreign system.

 

[PoliticalExile]

There are some excellent points being brought up about Islamic banking practices and the benefits to a capitalist economy.

Globalism has increased the poverty of those people living outside of European nations, largely through the capitalist charging of interest and debt, re IMF, World Bank.

It's interesting to note that the Communist government of the USSR charged interest in all of its banks in Euorpean nations. What is a communist government doing charging interest in a capitalist way.

Marx wrote labor must not be paid, he started the idea that industrial labor was a slave force that didn't have to be paid. That's what he wrote.

The point is were the Soviet Communist governments that loaned money at interest to African developing nations, increasing their debt, were they capitalist?

 

[volition]

Under capitalism, starvation, war, poverty and environmental destruction blight the lives of millions the world over.

Capitalism did not bring poverty about, it only inherited it.

It creates more millionaires than lotto ever did

We actually benefit from other people's riches, the capital of the rich serves as the supply for the goods we buy, and the demand for our labour. This means cheaper, better goods and higher wages.

 

[PoliticalExile]

Bank of Moscow, Narodny Bank, 1976 case began. Communist Bank cheating the developing nations over rigging the capitalist/communist interest rates.

Moscow Narodny Bank Ltd

- vs -

New Kok Ann Realty Sdn Bhd

Malaysian Dollars three million ($3,000,000)

Narodny Bank vs. Mosbert Finance (Hong Kong) Ltd known subsequently as Mosbert Acceptance Ltd (‘Mosbert’).. because it wanted to charge a higher rate of interest. Real Communists, yes, real communists. As Marx said, the worker shall not be paid because the worker doesn't need to.

" I come now to the last issue for consideration. Cl 2 provided for interest to be paid on the principal ‘at the rate of eight and a half per centum (8½%) pa or at such other rate or rates as may be imposed by the bank from time to time with monthly rests’ and cl 4 provided that ‘the bank shall be entitled at any time and from time to time to vary at its discretion such rate of interest by serving a notice in writing on the chargor(s) and/or the borrower(s) such of its intention and such amended rate of interest shall be payable as from the date specified in the notice’. As it was admitted by the plaintiff’s senior credit officer Tan Chee Cheong in cross-examination that no notice was sent either to the defendant or Mosbert, counsel for the defendant stated that any interest leviable could not exceed 8½% pa."

Communist Bankers robbing the developing nations, Maylasia in this case.

http://www.ipsofactoj.com/archive/1989/Part05/arc1989(5)-001.htm

Australian court decision:

"Moscow Narodny Bank Ltd v Mosbert Finance (Aust) Pty Ltd [1976] WAR 109 ... details about the interest rate ..."

http://www.decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf/PDFJudgments-WebVw/2004WASC0015/$FILE/2004WASC0015.pdf


Marx said the workers didn't have to be paid because they already owned everything. Only problem was what they produced was lent at interest outside the country turning Russia into a slave and gulag nightmare. Narody Bank (Communist), London gave out huge loans to developing nations at interest rates then broke their financial word and cheated developing nations, causing poverty.

The Communists were more ruthless Capitalists because Marx's doctrine legitmized the poorest worker being paid nothing.

 

[~ChaLdO*GoDdEsS]

Capitalism works better in Practice, Communism works better in Theory.

So, we find a medium and voila. Utopia.

Hey just wanted to say that thats a really good point!!!

 

[cheesman]

there we go!
except i wouldnt say its a utopia hehe
i was gonna say something with similair meaning that communist countries do seem more screwed up and corrupted than capitalism

 

[volition]

Actually, Communism doesn't even work 'in theory'.

One of the fundamental problems that exist with it, exists in it's theory. Without private buying/selling of goods(especially capital goods) it is impossible to determine the 'true' price for it, and in a command economy where prices are set by the government, it follows from this that we wouldn't be making the best use of our resources.