If America Should Go Communist

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]orion wrote:

That is your opinion and you’re entitled to it.

Personally,I see the need for some control and regulation of the free market all around me.

Are you sure those are the results of capitalism?

And if you are how can you be, if it is impossible to know?

It might well be the result of government intervention that was meant to solve one problem on one end of the system and creates a whole set of new ones one the other side.

The problem might not even be inherent to capitalism. Capitalism often takes the blame for things that go wrong in all systems, fE corruption.

This is not a trivial problem, because if capitalism IS the problem a free market solution is not the answer, if there just is a problem there might be a capitalist solution.

Of course politicians will allways claim that the market failed us, but they are in the market distorting business.

[/quote]

As an example,let’s take corruption.When a company pays bribes to do business in a foreign country,how do you view that?

342

[quote]orion wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:

I agree with you Thunderbolt.Capitalism works.

But I believe that due to the failings of human nature,it also needs to be policed and regulated to counter its worst excesses.

And I agree with this as well - humans are incapable of creating flawless, ideologically pure systems that will create Heaven on Earth. That goes for capitalism as well.

There is just that tiny insignificant detail that nonone created “capitalism”. it just evolved and it that sense it never truly was an “ism”.

The reason capitalism works is that it naturally grow out of human interactions, people simply start to trade, invent money and safe given the opportunity.

All the other “isms” are constructivist fantasies of so called “intellectuals” that think they could build Utopia if everyone bowed to their wisdom.

Why am I writing this?

Because it follows that we never really know what is an excess of capitalism or an integral part of it, so by doctoring around we allmost allways do more damage than good.[/quote]

i dont think people who believe in communism pretend that it will create a utopia. i have never read anywhere that communism results in a perfect society. what communism intends to do is to stop the exploitation of man by man.

the argument that capitalsim developed naturally does not automatically make it good. it could be argued that war is natural and arises from interaction between humans but this does not mean that is is good.

343

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
pat36 wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
I, for one, am angry at all those young men who gave their lives in western Europe to destroy the National Socialist paradise in Germany. How dare they impose their wicked culture on the peaceful people of Nazi Germany!

i am confused by your posts. what does natzi germany have to do with the ussr.

socialists, all of them…

i thought germany was against communism. i dont think nazi germany qualifies as socialist, in fact im certain.

Germany, Italy…basically the Axis powers were facists. They hated socialism even more than I do. The two ideologies are on opposite sides of the spectrum, but equally bad and evil.
Facism is extremly idividualistic, but only for the perfect individuals.
Socialism is for group only and completly ignores the individual as a factor.

Fascism is indistinguishable from communism except in their rhetoric…

communists are very opposed to fascism. communism by nature is democratic. in communism there is no state, it is complete rule by the people.

You need to think about what you are writing just a bit deeper…[/quote]

could you please explain

344

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

As an example,let’s take corruption.When a company pays bribes to do business in a foreign country,how do you view that?[/quote]

First of all “bribe” is such a hard word…

We call that financially motivating someone…

Anyway…

How is it the companies fault if a political system is corrupt?

What if said system is a socialist system (and that means corruption as a political principle); is it still a flaw of the capitalist system?

Corruption is really a bad example, because it happens in bullionism, mercantilism, feudalism, socialsm, communism and probably in stone age societies (nepotism!) with allmost no economic system at all.

Corruption is a broad subject and what we consider corruption now, like the bidding for public offices, had long and respectable traditions in other cultures.

Corruption:

Way to fuzzy, far to common.

345

[quote]orion wrote:

There is just that tiny insignificant detail that nonone created “capitalism”. it just evolved and it that sense it never truly was an “ism”.

The reason capitalism works is that it naturally grow out of human interactions, people simply start to trade, invent money and safe given the opportunity.

[/quote]
What you are describing is not capitalism. It falls under the broader category of economics in general; there are many varying theories within micro-economics why this happens.

Capitalism while being rooted in private ownership isn’t as cut-and-dry as you claim. What you describe here could indeed happen within the realm of communism

Groups living and working together that produce a usable good bring their excess goods to market in exchange for what ever they need. Trade has nothing to do with capitalism and or communism; however, ownership of those markets does.

You ever wonder why you pay someone to trade in the stock market whether you require a “middle-man” or not? That is the “tyranny of ownership” that comes with capitalism.

346

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
pat36 wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
I, for one, am angry at all those young men who gave their lives in western Europe to destroy the National Socialist paradise in Germany. How dare they impose their wicked culture on the peaceful people of Nazi Germany!

i am confused by your posts. what does natzi germany have to do with the ussr.

socialists, all of them…

i thought germany was against communism. i dont think nazi germany qualifies as socialist, in fact im certain.

Germany, Italy…basically the Axis powers were facists. They hated socialism even more than I do. The two ideologies are on opposite sides of the spectrum, but equally bad and evil.
Facism is extremly idividualistic, but only for the perfect individuals.
Socialism is for group only and completly ignores the individual as a factor.

Fascism is indistinguishable from communism except in their rhetoric…

communists are very opposed to fascism. communism by nature is democratic. in communism there is no state, it is complete rule by the people.

You need to think about what you are writing just a bit deeper…

could you please explain[/quote]

A short comparison then:

Fascism is a dictatorship which is maintained by coercion and a massive central security control system.The system encompasses control of security apparatus,media and most facets of day to day life.There is massive government control of the economy,large social spending projects are the order of the day,and there is a well entrenched power elite.
Now substitute Fascism with Communism.
Can you see the similarities?
This is of course in the real world applications of both systems.

347

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:

the argument that capitalsim developed naturally does not automatically make it good. it could be argued that war is natural and arises from interaction between humans but this does not mean that is is good. [/quote]

True.

Absolutely a valid point.

Hajeks and other peoples response is that it at least works.

Not in theory, but in real live, WITH the people we allready have.

The problem is we do not understand such evolved structures very well. Markets, forms of marriags, traditions, they all interact and are woven into each other.

The (classic)liberal approach is to acknowledge that we do not know how it works, but we do know what works, so best create a frame that makes it work smoothly (trade laws, courts, etc) and leave it alone.

There is the other approach though which claims that superior societies or institutions can be “constructed” by reason alone. (=> Constructivism)

The technical term is “hubris”.

The problem these people have is that society is far too complex and allways changing.

The market deals with millions of people and their interactions in real time and it is changed by them, it gives constant feed back to all those people , changing them and their preference which in turn changes the market.

There is no way to deal with that with a top down approach, which is what a planned economy is.

Maybe a Kibbuz is what you are looking for.

They do what they do without forcing other people into it.

348

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Fascism is indistinguishable from communism except in their rhetoric…[/quote]

Really they travel around the circle in opposing directions and end up and the same point: oppression.

349

[quote]orion wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:

As an example,let’s take corruption.When a company pays bribes to do business in a foreign country,how do you view that?

First of all “bribe” is such a hard word…

We call that financially motivating someone…

Anyway…

How is it the companies fault if a political system is corrupt?

What if said system is a socialist system (and that means corruption as a political principle); is it still a flaw of the capitalist system?

Corruption is really a bad example, because it happens in bullionism, mercantilism, feudalism, socialsm, communism and probably in stone age societies (nepotism!) with allmost no economic system at all.

Corruption is a broad subject and what we consider corruption now, like the bidding for public offices, had long and respectable traditions in other cultures.

Corruption:

Way to fuzzy, far to common.[/quote]

I was just using what you wrote about,but indulge me just for a bit.

As a company,it makes perfect sense to either deal with,or try to ‘financially motivate’ an official in order to lock down lucrative contracts.Profit is the major motivator.
While many companies would not try this in their home countries,it has been generally accepted practice for many years for them in foreign climates.In France these costs were even tax deductible.
Do you see this as acceptable business practice?
It is under unfettered capitalism.

350

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:

There is just that tiny insignificant detail that nonone created “capitalism”. it just evolved and it that sense it never truly was an “ism”.

The reason capitalism works is that it naturally grow out of human interactions, people simply start to trade, invent money and safe given the opportunity.

What you are describing is not capitalism. It falls under the broader category of economics in general; there are many varying theories within micro-economics why this happens.

Capitalism while being rooted in private ownership isn’t as cut-and-dry as you claim. What you describe here could indeed happen within the realm of communism

Groups living and working together that produce a usable good bring their excess goods to market in exchange for what ever they need. Trade has nothing to do with capitalism and or communism; however, ownership of those markets does.

You ever wonder why you pay someone to trade in the stock market whether you require a “middle-man” or not? That is the “tyranny of ownership” that comes with capitalism.[/quote]

Production and trade requires the idea of pivate ownership of production goods and land (capital) and the ownership of the result of that ownership and use, consumer goods.

That pretty much is capitalism.

Even market ownership is perfectly ok if I, or someone, can open a competing market.

That someone does not have to trade with me for free is hardly tyranny. In fact he does not have to trade with me at all.

351

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

As a company,it makes perfect sense to either deal with,or try to ‘financially motivate’ an official in order to lock down lucrative contracts.Profit is the major motivator.
While many companies would not try this in their home countries,it has been generally accepted practice for many years for them in foreign climates.In France these costs were even tax deductible.
Do you see this as acceptable business practice?
It is under unfettered capitalism.
[/quote]

And again:

Corruption is unique to capitalism so it is not a problem caused by capitalism.

Then, and this point is important, in an “unfettered capitalism” a government official should not even have the power to give or deny you any favors, because the government would not interfere with the economy.

So ceterum censeo, why blame capitalism if it is government interference you dislike?

The capitalist surly would like to pay less in bribes, it is good for profit margins you know?

I do not see corruption as that big a deal, in fact I may have bribed one or two people to help things speed along.

It very often is a kind of black market service to deal with bureaucratic restrictions that make no sense for noone who has to deal with them.

PS: Companies do not try this in their own countries? Sure they do, but then it is allmost allways legal.

You do not need to break a law to buy a politician. Just give them consulting jobs after their term.

352

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Fascism is indistinguishable from communism except in their rhetoric…

Really they travel around the circle in opposing directions and end up and the same point: oppression.[/quote]

according to the definitions you have given us fascism is anti-communist and includes aspects of corporatism. this more closely resembles capitalism

353

[quote]orion wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:

As a company,it makes perfect sense to either deal with,or try to ‘financially motivate’ an official in order to lock down lucrative contracts.Profit is the major motivator.
While many companies would not try this in their home countries,it has been generally accepted practice for many years for them in foreign climates.In France these costs were even tax deductible.
Do you see this as acceptable business practice?
It is under unfettered capitalism.

And again:

Corruption is unique to capitalism so it is not a problem caused by capitalism.

Then, and this point is important, in an “unfettered capitalism” a government official should not even have the power to give or deny you any favors, because the government would not interfere with the economy.

So ceterum censeo, why blame capitalism if it is government interference you dislike?

The capitalist surly would like to pay less in bribes, it is good for profit margins you know?

I do not see corruption as that big a deal, in fact I may have bribed one or two people to help things speed along.

It very often is a kind of black market service to deal with bureaucratic restrictions that make no sense for noone who has to deal with them.

PS: Companies do not try this in their own countries? Sure they do, but then it is allmost allways legal.

You do not need to break a law to buy a politician. Just give them consulting jobs after their term. [/quote]

You make more profit paying bribes because:

You insure no competition.
you have complete acceptance of your tender guaranteed.

And in your PS I hope you meant ‘illegal’?

Which if you did,it all reverts back to my original assertion that the free market needs some forms of control because it cannot govern itself effectively.

354

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

Fascism is indistinguishable from communism except in their rhetoric…

communists are very opposed to fascism. communism by nature is democratic. in communism there is no state, it is complete rule by the people.

You need to think about what you are writing just a bit deeper…

could you please explain

A short comparison then:

Fascism is a dictatorship which is maintained by coercion and a massive central security control system.The system encompasses control of security apparatus,media and most facets of day to day life.There is massive government control of the economy,large social spending projects are the order of the day,and there is a well entrenched power elite.
Now substitute Fascism with Communism.
Can you see the similarities?
This is of course in the real world applications of both systems.[/quote]

the explanation that you gave of fascism completely contradicts communism and more closely resembles what capitalism has led to.

if there is a dictatorship in place then it is not communism. communism does not attempt to take control of the security appratus, the media or any aspect of day to day life. communism seeks to establish the communal ownership of the means of production. communism is very gainst against a well entrenched elite.

capitalism however has led to:control of the media, control of politicians and it has established a well entrenched elite.

355

[quote]orion wrote:
Production and trade requires the idea of pivate ownership of production goods and land (capital) and the ownership of the result of that ownership and use, consumer goods.

That pretty much is capitalism.

Even market ownership is perfectly ok if I, or someone, can open a competing market.

That someone does not have to trade with me for free is hardly tyranny. In fact he does not have to trade with me at all.
[/quote]

First, I don’t believe it is possible to own land. One can be a custodian of it and take care of it and even harvest resources from it but it cannot be owned. Here in the US one can be subjected to immenent domain . Secondly, ownership is not required to bring goods to market. I can produce whatever I need from the land (for example) and bring it to market to trade for other needs/wants.

My point about markets wasn’t to say they are unfair. If someone “owns” the real estate where trading takes place it may be in their right to charge a fee for the privaleges of trade; however, it does not mean I shouln’t be able to exchange for free. Isn’t this the essence of free and unfettered trade?

Your point about competing markets was exactly my point; how many markets exist for trading securities around the world? Aren’t most securities exchanged only in a particular market; for example, FORD is exchanged in NASDAQ. That would be like me only being able to buy Doritos at Wal-Mart. There is no competition for exchange and there are only a few moguls tied to those markets. That is neither free nor fair. Capitalists corner the market by owning “the market”. Owning a market implies the power to decide who one trades with and who can trade at all. That is tyrannical.

356

[quote]orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

the argument that capitalsim developed naturally does not automatically make it good. it could be argued that war is natural and arises from interaction between humans but this does not mean that is is good.

True.

Absolutely a valid point.

Hajeks and other peoples response is that it at least works.

Not in theory, but in real live, WITH the people we allready have.

The problem is we do not understand such evolved structures very well. Markets, forms of marriags, traditions, they all interact and are woven into each other.

The (classic)liberal approach is to acknowledge that we do not know how it works, but we do know what works, so best create a frame that makes it work smoothly (trade laws, courts, etc) and leave it alone.

There is the other approach though which claims that superior societies or institutions can be “constructed” by reason alone. (=> Constructivism)

The technical term is “hubris”.

The problem these people have is that society is far too complex and allways changing.

The market deals with millions of people and their interactions in real time and it is changed by them, it gives constant feed back to all those people , changing them and their preference which in turn changes the market.

There is no way to deal with that with a top down approach, which is what a planned economy is.

Maybe a Kibbuz is what you are looking for.

They do what they do without forcing other people into it.[/quote]

capitalism has led to great wealth for an elite few. in this way capitalism has worked

however, the concrentration of wealth becomes greater and greater all the time. we cannot say that capitalism is a succes becasue of the damage it has caused. it eliminated democracy, this alone should be enough to descredit capitalism. it has been the cause of wars, and it has empoverished countries.

capitalism has worked for a few and these elite few do what they can to make it seem like capitalism benefits the whole world.

357

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:

Fascism is indistinguishable from communism except in their rhetoric…

communists are very opposed to fascism. communism by nature is democratic. in communism there is no state, it is complete rule by the people.

You need to think about what you are writing just a bit deeper…

could you please explain

A short comparison then:

Fascism is a dictatorship which is maintained by coercion and a massive central security control system.The system encompasses control of security apparatus,media and most facets of day to day life.There is massive government control of the economy,large social spending projects are the order of the day,and there is a well entrenched power elite.
Now substitute Fascism with Communism.
Can you see the similarities?
This is of course in the real world applications of both systems.

the explanation that you gave of fascism completely contradicts communism and more closely resembles what capitalism has led to.

if there is a dictatorship in place then it is not communism. communism does not attempt to take control of the security appratus, the media or any aspect of day to day life. communism seeks to establish the communal ownership of the means of production. communism is very gainst against a well entrenched elite.

capitalism however has led to:control of the media, control of politicians and it has established a well entrenched elite.[/quote]

Did you read the last line of my post?
Because that is what we live in,the real world.
Give me one example of any self proclaimed 'communist’or ‘socialist’ system that has existed that is or was not as I described please?

358

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

And in your PS I hope you meant ‘illegal’?

Which if you did,it all reverts back to my original assertion that the free market needs some forms of control because it cannot govern itself effectively.[/quote]

Sure I meant legal. Why break laws if you can buy them legally?

If you say that capitalism needs laws that build an organizational frame, I agree.

That is different from interfering with the market, that means building a market.

It is the equivalent of insuring that all the weights and scales are correct.

359

[quote]orion wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:

And in your PS I hope you meant ‘illegal’?

Which if you did,it all reverts back to my original assertion that the free market needs some forms of control because it cannot govern itself effectively.

Sure I meant legal. Why break laws if you can buy them legally?

If you say that capitalism needs laws that build an organizational frame, I agree.

That is different from interfering with the market, that means building a market.

It is the equivalent of insuring that all the weights and scales are correct.[/quote]

Same as human beings need regulation and laws to control damaging behaviour,so does free market.
Are we in agreement?

360

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:

capitalism has led to great wealth for an elite few. in this way capitalism has worked

however, the concrentration of wealth becomes greater and greater all the time. we cannot say that capitalism is a succes becasue of the damage it has caused. it eliminated democracy, this alone should be enough to descredit capitalism. it has been the cause of wars, and it has empoverished countries.

capitalism has worked for a few and these elite few do what they can to make it seem like capitalism benefits the whole world.

[/quote]

The fact that you strongly believe in some things does not make them so.

The link between private ownership and political rights has be demonstrated and proven allmost countless times now.

Friedman “Capitalism and Freedom”.
Hayek “The Road to Tyranny”

Great books, read them.

You can also claim again and again an agiain that capitalism makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, while we have raised the living standards in Europe and the US to unknown heights, even for the poorest among us.

The third world gets not poorer and poorer because of capitalism, in fact it would be impossible to feed them, ie they would never have been born without capitalism.

And no, capitalism usually prevents wars.

People that trade with each other tend not to shoot each other and greedy capitalist tend to take care of their property.

You do not like the way human people behave, but that is no reason to believe that that is because of a political system.