Capitalism or Communism? (1 Viewer)

[bassistx]

The problem with governments is that they're ordinary people trying to govern over things of which they know nothing.

I think only doctors should be health ministers. Only those with a background in engineering or transport should be in charge of roads, etc.

I've always agreed with this.

We can't find the car keys. Dad took them.
*scream*

I will come back here later (to answer). I'll just watch for now

 

[Dundasbro]

Motherfucker, IN PRACTICE IT CAN'T WORK. HISTORY DOES NOT LIE ABOUT THIS.

What about current Vietnam? I know they have moved off a bit from an emphasis on Socialism but they are regarded to be a Socialist state which has a functioning and growing economy. Though they don't have too much in the way of freedom there politically.

 

[williamc]

What about current Vietnam? I know they have moved off a bit from an emphasis on Socialism but they are regarded to be a Socialist state which has a functioning and growing economy. Though they don't have too much in the way of freedom there politically.

i would hardly call vietnam a centrally planned economy, more a mixed economy.

They ridded their protectionist policies in the 80's, and have benefited from the beautys of globalisation.

Economic growth is only because of this.

 

[bassistx]

Globalisation destroys choice and specialty, therefore quality. The argument boris and others are making is if you have the money, why not spend it?
Globalisation is mass-produced cheap products. Globalisation is not a luxury.
And you are FOR luxuries, are you not?

I'm talking about items here, not systems.
Materialism.

 

[williamc]

Globalisation destroys choice and specialty, therefore quality. The argument boris and others are making is if you have the money, why not spend it?
Globalisation is mass-produced cheap products. Globalisation is not a luxury.
And you are FOR luxuries, are you not?

I'm talking about items here, not systems.
Materialism.

LOLWUT!

Globalisation gives consumers more choice.

Globalisation is the integration of individual economies into a global economy.

Items are shit. Systems are the shizza.

 

[dieburndie]

Globalisation destroys choice and specialty, therefore quality. The argument boris and others are making is if you have the money, why not spend it?
Globalisation is mass-produced cheap products. Globalisation is not a luxury.
And you are FOR luxuries, are you not?

I'm talking about items here, not systems.
Materialism.

What kind of post is this? Really, I don't actually understand your point at all.

 

[bassistx]

McD's everywhere is more choice? What the hell are you studying?
Speciality stores are the opposite of transnational corps. Specialty = quality (because they specialise)

 

[boris]

Globalisation destroys choice and specialty, therefore quality. The argument boris and others are making is if you have the money, why not spend it?
Globalisation is mass-produced cheap products. Globalisation is not a luxury.
And you are FOR luxuries, are you not?

I'm talking about items here, not systems.
Materialism.

Epic failure on your behalf again.

Globalisation increases choice, makes businesses competitive which = wins for consumer

So what if items are mass produced, they're cheap for the consumer.

 

[Smithereens]

Globalisation destroys choice and specialty, therefore quality. The argument boris and others are making is if you have the money, why not spend it?
Globalisation is mass-produced cheap products. Globalisation is not a luxury.
And you are FOR luxuries, are you not?

I'm talking about items here, not systems.
Materialism.

You must really live in a cardboard box house.

 

[williamc]

McD's everywhere is more choice? What the hell are you studying?
Speciality stores are the opposite of transnational corps. Specialty = quality (because they specialise)

yer you can more readily buy macca's now.

Speciality = quality??


Kool developing your own economic theories at the age of 17.

 

[Comrade nathan]

my opinion on the practice of communism is that, while in theory it sounds great to have everybody on an equal playing field, in practice it cannot work so smoothly because of the human nature I was talking about before. it looks ok on paper but trying to get people to actually do it and not have it fall flat on its face or have to be propped up by a dictatorship to ensure it keeps going, is a much more difficult thing, and in the end i think it's neither worth it, nor entirely fair, despite what the ideal is meant to be.

It is not practical to implement Communism, and I have never known a person in history to try and do this. Maybe Pol Pot, though this is a very murky area.

What others have tried, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim-Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh and various other, they made the first attempt to element all forms of oppression, through socialist construction. Now I say construction, because they had to develop industry and argiculture.

What they acheived was very positive. What they failed to stop, the restoration of capitalism (not yet of DPRK and Cuba, maybe Vietnam even) is a hard problem to understand.

Part of the problem, which you call human nature, is some people in the bureaucracy represented managers in the socialist system, and their drive to control resources and be rewarding for producing above the quota. They allowed the introduction of profit incentive, which under people like Stalin was secondary to need of the people, under Krushchev it was awarded. This I guess can be called greed, it can be called revisionism, a capitalist form etc. And I think it was a huge problem, however Communist have noted this. Mao noted this rise of bureaucracy, and the revisionsim that followed.

This revisionism, however does not equal to the idea of a common human nature of greed. This idea of greed, is based on primarily on Western consumption, where people can afford to be greedy. The idea in the socialist, third/second world camp is collective consumption. Collective effort and you get a collective return. For instance the industrialisation of Russia in the 30s and the collectivisation of argiculture, was a collective effort of the workers and peasanty, and there was a collective consumpstion. Living standards of the workers and peasants were raised at what would have to be a world record

I don't think people look at the "toiling masses" in this countries. It is a huge thing in a country like DPRK, for the government to be able to provide, a warm meal, a house and clothes under a independent socialist system. And being in Cuba earlier this year, I know that people do want more, they would like the little luxuries in their life. However except in the extreme cases, such as people using rafts to leave Cuba, these people support their government.

If greed was a huge problem, I don't think the socialist systems would have lasted as long as they did, nor would people in India, Nepal, Philipines, Peru and Colombia (the most notable countries with a communist insurgency) continue to fight for this system, or in countries like Moldova, India (West Bengal etc) Cyprus, Mongolia etc (places where Communist have been elected and win a majority in parliament) would keep voting for Communists. This "greed" element only becomes a problem when the beuraucracy allows a group of representatives (managers) to create similar styles of economy to that of capitalism.

What I am trying to do is show that the most poor people in this world, the $1 a day people, really benifit from Communist ideology when put in practice. Even if it is getting the bare essentials, food, or for woman to be allowed an education. And that this idea of "greed" has be theorised as "revisionism" and thoose who fight today for Communism, have the knowledge of this problem.

What I am saying is there is going to be a new era of Communism. And this discussion about Capitalism against Communism, has no relevance to the actually contradiction between Capitalism and Communism being played out mostly in the third world.

 

[bassistx]

For God's sake, you think the quality will be the same, whether it's from a department store or a specialty store?

Why the hell don't you think about it? McD's every kilometre, or different restaurants every kilometre. Which is more choice?
Globalisations destroys specialty stores. Nothing is made with such equisite care and detail anymore.

Make up your mind. First you want luxuries, now you want it on the cheap.

 

[dieburndie]

Regardless, there is still a demand for quality, specialty goods.
I don't see the problems, people who don't like mass produced goods create demand and therefore it becomes financially viable for someone to sell them these goods.

 

[williamc]

For God's sake, you think the quality will be the same, whether it's from a department store or a specialty store?

Why hell don't you think about it? McD's every kilometre, or different restaurants every kilometre. Which is more choice?
Globalisations destroys specialty stores. Nothing is made with such equisite care and detail anymore.

Make up your mind. First you want luxuries, now you want it on the cheap.

lol wtf are you talking about..

Mixed economy = maximum compeition between firms = lower prices for consumers = win.

I seriously don't realise how one can develop an economic theory after completing preliminary business studies.

 

[boris]

Regardless, there is still a demand for quality, specialty goods.
I don't see the problems, people who don't like mass produced goods create demand and therefore it becomes financially viable for someone to sell them these goods.

QTF.

That was going to be my response.

Mass production is good for the masses. It's cheap and there is a lot of it.

Speciality stores will always have a market. But they're more expensive, thus that market is limited to those with the means to spend in speciality stores.

 

[williamc]

Speciality stores will always have a market. But they're more expensive, thus that market is limited to those with the means to spend in speciality stores.

and this has nothing to do with globalisation.

 

[boris]

and this has nothing to do with globalisation.

Economically, no it doesn't.

Without globalisation though (through communication improvements), we wouldn't have these white, middle aged people running speciality Indonesian import shops.

OH BUT GLOBALISATION IS CUTTING OUT THE MIDDLE MAN.

 

[williamc]

Without globalisation though (through communication improvements), we wouldn't have these white, middle aged people running speciality Indonesian import shops.

I will never understand why globalisation has done this.

I will never understand why globalisation itself has attributed to the "brain drain" phenomen.

Im going to change degree's.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

This revisionism, however does not equal to the idea of a common human nature of greed. This idea of greed, is based on primarily on Western consumption, where people can afford to be greedy.

Yes. That's why communism is never going to take hold in the Western world.

The idea in the socialist, third/second world camp is collective consumption. Collective effort and you get a collective return. For instance the industrialisation of Russia in the 30s and the collectivisation of argiculture, was a collective effort of the workers and peasanty, and there was a collective consumpstion. Living standards of the workers and peasants were raised at what would have to be a world record

I don't think people look at the "toiling masses" in this countries. It is a huge thing in a country like DPRK, for the government to be able to provide, a warm meal, a house and clothes under a independent socialist system. And being in Cuba earlier this year, I know that people do want more, they would like the little luxuries in their life. However except in the extreme cases, such as people using rafts to leave Cuba, these people support their government.

Ok, so let's say for argument's sake that communism is a good idea for people in downtrodden countries, and maybe it is. Though, I can't help but think that after a while, people would start to think less about what's good for everyone and more about what they themselves want. You can't stop that kind of thinking, and personally I wouldn't want to see it stopped, because it's quite a natural way to think. A person who never thinks this way has either been brainwashed or is a robot.


There are some things about communist states that irk me too much for me to trust that such a system can be implemented for long without getting corrupt. E.g. state control of the media. Also, since communism is supposed to operate for the 'greater good', does that not mean that opposition to the regime effectively constitutes treason? that's something i can't morally accept. everyone has the right to freedom of speech, thought and expression.

 

[dieburndie]

I can see the greater relevance of collectivism in areas of the third world with communal lifestyles and significantly diminished individual self-interest. However, it still results in lower output, development and living standards. It is also obviously subject to abuse and ultimately tyranny.