Capitalism or Communism? Is communism really that horrible?

[TakeAStepBack]

Being taken seriously and being right aren't the same. Mises was one of the first critics of Marx and laid down in great detail all of Marx fallacious concepts. Whether you've read any of his work or not (obviously not), or believe "no one who understands economics would do" (which is completely untrue unless you want to disregard the school of economic thought that has been calling every boom/bust cycle accurately ove rthe last 100 years).

What is certainly clear from my time on this board, you do not have a clue regarding economics.

 

[Dragon]

agreed...(unless they bastardize that constitution)

Doesn't matter whether they do or not. Communism is impossible, and also in concept incompatible with government of any kind.

this very question is pretty much being voted on right now by our Supreme Court Justices

No, they're deciding whether the government can mandate the purchase of health insurance, which is not a requirement of a socialist economy.

states rights.....per the Constitution....

What? Where in the Constitution does it forbid the states from establishing a socialist economy?

 

[Uncensored2008]

That would only be true if one were to take von Mises seriously, which no one who understands economics would ever do. Even Marx makes more sense than von Mises.

There is a word for those who dismiss von Mises out of hand; "moron."

Disagree if you like, but only the ignorant dismiss von Mises - or Marx, per my earlier comment. Ideologues avoid information that criticizes their world-view, which is what you are doing here, Dragon.

 

[Dragon]

What is certainly clear from my time on this board, you do not have a clue regarding economics.

What is clear is that you, like many believers in the Austrian school, confuse conforming to that ideology with knowing about economics. In fact, knowledge of economics precludes conforming to Austrian school ideology. So while there are other errors possible, so that rejection of the Austrian school is not a perfect indicator of economic knowledge, it is certainly a prerequisite.

 

[regent]

Communism doesn't work that's why no nation has practiced Marxian communism. I think most economists finally agreed, for example, that the Soviet Union's economic system was closer to state capitalism. In any case Marxian communism has never worked, so countries don't even try.
The most practical use of of communism has been as a fear-factor, politicians use it to scare the bejabbers out of people, labeling everything they don't like as communism. The other use has been to promise a utopia via communism.
With Marxian communism, for example, there is no big government because there is no government, not even money.
America, as most major nations, practice a combination of socialism and regulated capitalism. But here too, Marx left his fear-factor in that people believed for a long time that socialism led to communism.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What is certainly clear from my time on this board, you do not have a clue regarding economics.

What is clear is that you, like many believers in the Austrian school, confuse conforming to that ideology with knowing about economics. In fact, knowledge of economics precludes conforming to Austrian school ideology. So while there are other errors possible, so that rejection of the Austrian school is not a perfect indicator of economic knowledge, it is certainly a prerequisite.

You believe the only economic studies I've performed are through Austrian school?

Wow. A dipshit and a pretend know-it-all.

The Austrian school isn't all concurring. there are debates regarding economics from within too, just liek other schools of thought. Any dipshit noty to pre-occupied with their belief they have a clue would know that. And finally, they are the ones getting it right on the business cycle every time. So you're wrong to boot. Congrats.

 

[Edgetho]

The most damning book Ive ever read oon Socialism was written by Ludwig von Mises.

Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis

He pretty much body slams the entire concept right through th efloor. Good read.

Read it a long time ago.

It was like reading a beautiful mathematical equation. But no matter how beautiful, it was still Math.

It should be required reading in every High School and College in the World

 

[konradv]

Watch your "isms". Their record in the 20th century wasn't very good.

 

[Unkotare]

Harrison Bergeron

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If by a beautiful math equation you mean put into laymans terms and replaced with a priori knowledge, of sorts, then I would agree.

 

[peach174]

agreed...(unless they bastardize that constitution)

Doesn't matter whether they do or not. Communism is impossible, and also in concept incompatible with government of any kind.

this very question is pretty much being voted on right now by our Supreme Court Justices

No, they're deciding whether the government can mandate the purchase of health insurance, which is not a requirement of a socialist economy.

states rights.....per the Constitution....

What? Where in the Constitution does it forbid the states from establishing a socialist economy?

Our Constitution is the Law of the Land. For the Feds as well as the states.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

agreed...(unless they bastardize that constitution)

doesn't matter whether they do or not. Communism is impossible, and also in concept incompatible with government of any kind.

of course....in its purest form...

this very question is pretty much being voted on right now by our supreme court justices

no, they're deciding whether the government can mandate the purchase of health insurance, which is not a requirement of a socialist economy.

it is definitely a question of individual freedom vs. The power of the federal government....would you eventually like a broccoli mandate.....?

states rights.....per the constitution....

what? Where in the constitution does it forbid the states from establishing a socialist economy?

i said states have their own rights...anything not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution....

.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

Pure Socialism or Communism is workable with smaller numbers. It has never been applied to the full extent with mass numbers. The CCCP was built in the image of Stalin and was not even close to Communism. China under Mao was another military running roughshod over the citizens. Neither are good examples.
The Native Americans were very close to a pure Communist or Socialist state. They operated in smaller communities and prospered. It is hard to say whether these types of governments could flourish with populations in the millions.
Looking at the US and many European nations who have been based in a very capitalistic government for centuries it would be impossible to change the mindset based on material possessions.
Most nations are a variation on many styles of government. Trying to have a nation become Socialist or Communist would be impossible.
Communities that are self sustaining do exist and at a high level. I know of no community such as this larger than 1500 people in one area.

I think the greatest difficulty in building a large Communist or Socialist state would be incentive driven by profit and higher standard of living.

If you look at what many see as Communist states CCCP and China they were fragile at the center as they were pushed into those forms of government. Control was vital to the leaders to keep their powers. This is not Communist or Socialist. If there is a constant struggle for power the system was not installed correctly i.e military takeover or never Communist or Socialist in the first place.
In small groups where people are willing to share a more communal model of life these systems can work fine.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Socialism is always democratic, nationalizes only indusries that are necessities, where profit should not be the motive, like health care and energy- water, the military are already gov't run. Holland, Switz, and the USA have mainly private insurance for health care, except for the poor- only the USA has a stupid, cruel, incredible expensive, corrupt insurance system, thanks to greedy pubs and moron dupes. Real communism has never been tried, is impossible given human nature...

I love how you attempt to rationalize socialism...

 

[miami_thomas]

Capitalism or communism? Are those our only choices?: God help us! Either a system of organized greed with a systematically-underperforming economy and widespread poverty, or one that aims for an anarchistic utopia where everyone shares, devoid of natural human motivation, putting lead weights on anything fun between here and there. The ruthlessly horrible or the reality-challenged.

What's behind Door No. 3?

There is no door number 3. Liberalism, socialism, communism all have the same end game. Sure they are different in the beginning but eventually they will all end up with government running everything. When government runs everything that is when all the bad starts.

 

[usmcstinger]

After college I was all for communism. Call it indoctrination of the liberal teachers. However, I thought about it deeply and came to the conclusion it can never work. First, equal is a fantasy. Nothing can be equal because there is not an equal amount of resources. It is a fairy tale to believe everyone can have the same of everything because someone will always have something better. Whether it is lake front property, warmer climate, etc…. Everyone can not live on the beach in sunny south Florida or in Hawaii. Then we get to work. Everyone can not have the cushy chair job. Someone has to pick up the trash. Someone has to dive into the sewage tanks and risk hepatitis to clean it. Who is going to do those jobs freely if everything is equal? There is nothing more to gain from doing those jobs. Heck if everyone has the same thing then why work at all? Then the government will have to force people to work and then there goes human rights. The only way communism, socialism, liberalism, etc… can truly work is if we lived in the perfect world with the perfect resources and populated with the perfect people. We have none and that is why those forms of government will always fail in the end. Capitalism works because people in the end are greedy and always want more. No matter what form of government you have you will always have the haves and have nots. The only real question is does the individual decide through his own efforts and accomplishments or does the government get to pick the haves?

Government has no place in how we choose to live.
Throwing money at the have nots has never reduced their number.
When we have had full employment, there were still many have nots.

Not everyone is born with the traits needed to become economically successful.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Can anyone point to a country that has truly free market capitalism?

How about one that actually practices the tenets of Communism?

The United States once did practice true capitalism - well until Wilson.

I think the slaves first, then indentured servants later, would disagree with your assessment that the market was free.

For the top 1% it was free, funny how history repeats itself...

 

[miami_thomas]

So we don't need laws that allows workers to strike, rather than corporations hiring personal armies to gun them down? We don't need regulations to make sure miners have proper ventilation and detection of poisonous gas? We don't need regulations that protect from child, near slave labor? We don't need regulations that requires proper asbestos abatement? We don't need regulations that require licencing of lawyers, dentists, and doctors? We don't need regulations to ensure proper food labeling? We don't need regulations that require meat be inspected?

Aren't the lack of regulation abuses like those what ushered in the Progressive Era?

Workers were on strike before unions were even around. That was in the days of true capitalism. Murder is against the law not a regulation needed. If people keep dying, surely people would find a new job. In order to get employees they would have to better working conditions. Again slavery is against the law no regulation needed for the financial market. Not really doctors, lawyers, and dentist work now. Just under the table. If you don’t trust a doctor, lawyer, dentist then find one you do. Do you really think licenses make them special? Other countries survive just fine with out labeling and food inspections. Do the inspections really stop e coli? I think I keep seeing it pop up even with the inspections. If people keep getting sick from your product, they will stop buying it.

Striking workers, prior to the Progressive Era, were subjected to violence from private armies, like Pinkertons. How many Pinkerton killers were tried and convicted? Finding a new job is a joke, if all the robber barons had complete monopoly control over the industries. The term I used was near slavery. That's what child labor was tantamount to. Yes, I do think licensing demonstrates that one, the person has meet some baseline criteria to ply their trade, and pulling the license of bad actors is reasonable. Why would it matter if one could stop infected foods, since it's clear that it dramatically reduces the incidence. I guess you also hate the fact that the Public Health Service does all it can to find the cause of outbreaks. Without privately and testing all your own food, I doubt that most people know what they suffer from is a food borne illness, from a specific product.

All that will happen when you reduce government to bare essentials, is to make the cost of corporations buying your government cheaper.

No they did not the strikes at the fabric factory was one of the first and it succeeded in getting raises. It was others that saw the power of workers unionizing together that decided to create a permanent union to strong arm companies. Remember the mob and unions were the thugs. What world are you talking about please point to the evil time in history? I think doctors and hospitals would identify the illness and not Publice Health Service.

 

[miami_thomas]

Capitalism or communism? Are those our only choices?: God help us! Either a system of organized greed with a systematically-underperforming economy and widespread poverty, or one that aims for an anarchistic utopia where everyone shares, devoid of natural human motivation, putting lead weights on anything fun between here and there. The ruthlessly horrible or the reality-challenged.

What's behind Door No. 3?

What virtually all first world economies have found to work, i.e. mixed economies. Most things are best done by the private sector, but others can only be seriously addressed by government. Most of Western Europe has found that 60-40 mix works for them, and (if you add up all local, state, and federal services and taxes), we're closer to a 67-33 mix.

Yes that has worked well hasn't it? I think America was a great nation. In fact America was the greatest nation on the planet. It is the attempt to go to a mix that is killing this nation.

 

[bripat9643]

Communism, properly so called, is anarchistic. It has no government; it's the end-stage of Marxist theory in which the state has withered away. You're thinking of Marxist-Leninist socialism, which (supposedly) would lead to communism.

Of course, a communist economy in a civilized context is totally impossible, at least as much so as a perfect free market, which is why I say both these economic philosophies are reality-challenged, ivory-tower stuff without practical validity.

When people refer to communism, they mean what people who call themselves communist actually implemented. They don't mean the impossible fantasy that communists believe their moronic theories will lead to.

Communism as practiced is the only thing that matters.

Communist theory makes as much sense as a Dr. Sues book. It's totally irrelevant in the real world.