If America Should Go Communist

[orion]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

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.[/quote]

You want free trade to be enforced with much more gusto?

I`m completely with you. More competition , more free market, more capitalism!

[orion]

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
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.

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

If you mean some restrictions so that we can all be free, yes then we are.

My problem is the “damaging behaviour” part. That was used to build enourmous welfare states in Europe and if you mean that by “damaging behaviour of free markets” I very much disagree.

[gladiatorsteer]

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
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.

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?[/quote]

a communist system has never existed. there have been attempts at creating a socialist system but they have not been truly socialist. in socialism there is supposed to be direct control of the economy by the government but it is imperative that the government be under the full control of the people.

we have to ask why there has never been such systems. my belief is that the elite few are not willing to give up their power thus they interfere in any attempt to give the power to the masses.

feudalism preceded capitalism, according to your way of thinking feudalism should still exist. simply because we have become accustomed to a way of living it does not mean there isnt something better.

things must evolve, people must evolve

[pat]

Ok, so the question of the day…Where has communism/socialism worked? Ummmm…Hang on let me think…Ummmm. Oh Yea! NO-FUCKING-WHERE!

[gladiatorsteer]

[quote]orion wrote:
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.

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. [/quote]

latin america and africa are were conquered territories. they have been exploited(capitalism) since their conquests and continue to be. who were the conquerors? europe and the U.S., it is not a coincidence that they are the rich countries.

if capitalism prevents war why did it not prevent the attack on panama, the bay of pigs, the attack on granada, iraq, the mexican american war etc.

capitalism does not make people bad but it accentuates peoples bad traits. in capitalism greed is considered a strength and selflessnes is considered a weakness.

[Neuromancer]

[quote]orion wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
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.

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

If you mean some restrictions so that we can all be free, yes then we are.

My problem is the “damaging behaviour” part. That was used to build enourmous welfare states in Europe and if you mean that by “damaging behaviour of free markets” I very much disagree.[/quote]

I mean companies that behave in damaging ways within the system.Things such as tax avoidance,fraud,market manipulation,price collusion,bribery,etc.

[gladiatorsteer]

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Ok, so the question of the day…Where has communism/socialism worked? Ummmm…Hang on let me think…Ummmm. Oh Yea! NO-FUCKING-WHERE![/quote]

has there ever been a cure for aids? no, ok so lets no try to achieve it.

you argument does not hold water.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]orion wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

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.

You want free trade to be enforced with much more gusto?

I`m completely with you. More competition , more free market, more capitalism!
[/quote]

Capitolism has nothing to do with “free-trade”. Free trade is a merely a means to unfettered access to the market. Communism and capitalism have only to do with ownership of the means of production; and while they perhaps affect the market they do not determine how trade is carried out in said market. Technically there should not be “a market” but rather an open exchange where all parties come to an agreement on value, etc. This has nothing to do with ownership.

[Neuromancer]

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
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.

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?

a communist system has never existed. there have been attempts at creating a socialist system but they have not been truly socialist. in socialism there is supposed to be direct control of the economy by the government but it is imperative that the government be under the full control of the people.

we have to ask why there has never been such systems. my belief is that the elite few are not willing to give up their power thus they interfere in any attempt to give the power to the masses.

feudalism preceded capitalism, according to your way of thinking feudalism should still exist. simply because we have become accustomed to a way of living it does not mean there isnt something better.

things must evolve, people must evolve[/quote]

You’re entitled to your opinion.Systems come,and systems go,of course.Life is cyclical.Where did I say the current situation in the world is unmutable?
And please enlighten me about my thinking,since you have me all worked out.
And why must people ‘evolve’?
Radical statement…

[pat]

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Ok, so the question of the day…Where has communism/socialism worked? Ummmm…Hang on let me think…Ummmm. Oh Yea! NO-FUCKING-WHERE!

has there ever been a cure for aids? no, ok so lets no try to achieve it.

you argument does not hold water.[/quote]

We haven’t succeeded at raising the dead either. Should we keep trying that failed idea too?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Capitolism has nothing to do with “free-trade”. Free trade is a merely a means to unfettered access to the market. Communism and capitalism have only to do with ownership of the means of production; and while they perhaps affect the market they do not determine how trade is carried out in said market. [/quote]

This is false. The entire point of communism is that non-private means of ownership negates the entire trading mechanism. The state decides how much bread, pencils, and rubber tires to make - the entire point is to defeat the mechanism of supply-and-demand, not promote it.

Communist governments don’t want trade - trading opens up the possibility that someone will stockpile and own more than someone else.

“To each according to his need” - that is the opposite of a market or the practice of trading. Straight from Marx’s mouth. The market is replaced by the wisdom of the elite managers.

Technically there should not be “a market” but rather an open exchange where all parties come to an agreement on value, etc. This has nothing to do with ownership.

Then you are no longer talking about communism. An economic system that allows free trade of owned goods but publicly owned production of those goods is, well, a weird idea that makes communism even look plausible.

People’s tastes and interests change over time - assuming you allow the people the freedom to have tastes and interests - how can you allow people to freely ‘demand’ varying goods and have the government produce those demanded goods? How does a government decide which new goods to produce when demand shifts?

Capitalism can manage this process - pricing and profits act as the appropriate signals.

If the government owns the means of production, though, it has no smart way of figuring out what to make and what to discontinue making based on what the revered ‘people’ want. The only way for a public means of production is for the government to simply decide what to produce and ignore the tastes of the consumers. And then, here we are again - there is no need for a market if people can’t get what they demand. Which is what Marx wanted anyway - to remove supply-and-demand through command economics.

Once again, we see that communism is the most anti-democratic political economy available. A communist government cannot possibly reflect and keep up with the demands of a freely thinking and developing people in the economic sphere - it must take an authoritarian approach to deciding what will be produced and what will not. It must dictate, control.

It seems that communist, capitalist, or something in between - you don’t grasp basic economics.

[orion]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

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.

You want free trade to be enforced with much more gusto?

I`m completely with you. More competition , more free market, more capitalism!

Capitolism has nothing to do with “free-trade”. Free trade is a merely a means to unfettered access to the market. Communism and capitalism have only to do with ownership of the means of production; and while they perhaps affect the market they do not determine how trade is carried out in said market. Technically there should not be “a market” but rather an open exchange where all parties come to an agreement on value, etc. This has nothing to do with ownership.[/quote]

So if I get this right everyone gets to change the surplus of the things he produced in a sphere of open exchange where all parties come to an agreement on value.

I call that free trade on a market place.

What makes your idea a communist one?

[orion]

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

I mean companies that behave in damaging ways within the system.Things such as tax avoidance,fraud,market manipulation,price collusion,bribery,etc.[/quote]

I think we agree

[orion]

latin america and africa are were conquered territories. they have been exploited(capitalism) since their conquests and continue to be. who were the conquerors? europe and the U.S., it is not a coincidence that they are the rich countries.

if capitalism prevents war why did it not prevent the attack on panama, the bay of pigs, the attack on granada, iraq, the mexican american war etc.

capitalism does not make people bad but it accentuates peoples bad traits. in capitalism greed is considered a strength and selflessnes is considered a weakness.[/quote]

You are talking about Imperialism.

There is nothing inherent in capitalism to furthers or hinders such endevours except of course that capitalist societies usually outproduce their opponents by far.

Sovjet Russia and China were imperialistic and hardly capitalist, so why claim capitalism.

Did you ever think about that capitalism also rewards creative thinking, risk taking, bold action, trust in oneself, the desire to build a better place for yourself and your family and of course serving other peoples needs and desires?

Socialism also rewards lazyness, playing it safe, to freeload, moral hazards even though it claims to appeal to the best in us?

[gladiatorsteer]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

This is false. The entire point of communism is that non-private means of ownership negates the entire trading mechanism. The state decides how much bread, pencils, and rubber tires to make - the entire point is to defeat the mechanism of supply-and-demand, not promote it.

Communist governments don’t want trade - trading opens up the possibility that someone will stockpile and own more than someone else.

“To each according to his need” - that is the opposite of a market or the practice of trading. Straight from Marx’s mouth. The market is replaced by the wisdom of the elite managers.

Technically there should not be “a market” but rather an open exchange where all parties come to an agreement on value, etc. This has nothing to do with ownership.

Then you are no longer talking about communism. An economic system that allows free trade of owned goods but publicly owned production of those goods is, well, a weird idea that makes communism even look plausible.

People’s tastes and interests change over time - assuming you allow the people the freedom to have tastes and interests - how can you allow people to freely ‘demand’ varying goods and have the government produce those demanded goods? How does a government decide which new goods to produce when demand shifts?

Capitalism can manage this process - pricing and profits act as the appropriate signals.

If the government owns the means of production, though, it has no smart way of figuring out what to make and what to discontinue making based on what the revered ‘people’ want. The only way for a public means of production is for the government to simply decide what to produce and ignore the tastes of the consumers. And then, here we are again - there is no need for a market if people can’t get what they demand. Which is what Marx wanted anyway - to remove supply-and-demand through command economics.

Once again, we see that communism is the most anti-democratic political economy available. A communist government cannot possibly reflect and keep up with the demands of a freely thinking and developing people in the economic sphere - it must take an authoritarian approach to deciding what will be produced and what will not. It must dictate, control.

It seems that communist, capitalist, or something in between - you don’t grasp basic economics.[/quote]

what state? there is no state under communism.

in communism the government cannot ignore what the consumers want since the government is made up of the consumers (the people)

in communism the government is made up of the people, the entire community (whichever that may be).

[gladiatorsteer]

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
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.

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?

a communist system has never existed. there have been attempts at creating a socialist system but they have not been truly socialist. in socialism there is supposed to be direct control of the economy by the government but it is imperative that the government be under the full control of the people.

we have to ask why there has never been such systems. my belief is that the elite few are not willing to give up their power thus they interfere in any attempt to give the power to the masses.

feudalism preceded capitalism, according to your way of thinking feudalism should still exist. simply because we have become accustomed to a way of living it does not mean there isnt something better.

things must evolve, people must evolve

You’re entitled to your opinion.Systems come,and systems go,of course.Life is cyclical.Where did I say the current situation in the world is unmutable?
And please enlighten me about my thinking,since you have me all worked out.
And why must people ‘evolve’?
Radical statement…
[/quote]

you are right, i dont know how you would change the current situation or even if you would like to. i only assume on the basis of the arguments that you make. i would be interested to know your opinion on how you would improve capitalism or what the next step in this worlds economic evolution would be.

when i say humans should evolve i do not mean physiological evolution. what i am refering to is how people used to accept slavery and know they oppose it, this kind of evolution.

[gladiatorsteer]

[quote]pat36 wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Ok, so the question of the day…Where has communism/socialism worked? Ummmm…Hang on let me think…Ummmm. Oh Yea! NO-FUCKING-WHERE!

has there ever been a cure for aids? no, ok so lets no try to achieve it.

you argument does not hold water.

We haven’t succeeded at raising the dead either. Should we keep trying that failed idea too?[/quote]

so you are saying that we should stop looking for a cure for aids?

[Headhunter]

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

Fascism

Socialism

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

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

Both systems demand that you live for something outside of yourself and state that true happiness lies in working for the well-being of some mystical group, whether that be the Aryan Race or the Proletariat. Of course, those are just made-up words, designed by maniacs to enslave the rational among us.

“I do not recognize anyone’s ‘right’ to one minute of my life, no matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need. It had to be said: the world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrifice.”
— Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

[gladiatorsteer]

[quote]orion wrote:

You are talking about Imperialism.

There is nothing inherent in capitalism to furthers or hinders such endevours except of course that capitalist societies usually outproduce their opponents by far.

Sovjet Russia and China were imperialistic and hardly capitalist, so why claim capitalism.

Did you ever think about that capitalism also rewards creative thinking, risk taking, bold action, trust in oneself, the desire to build a better place for yourself and your family and of course serving other peoples needs and desires?

Socialism also rewards lazyness, playing it safe, to freeload, moral hazards even though it claims to appeal to the best in us?[/quote]

capitalism thrives on imperialism, it relies on it. its the creation of a new market.

capitalism also rewards greed, corruption, and disregard for human life(see bayer selling aids contaminated medicine)

i dont think we have an agreement on what socialism is, could you please give an explanation of socialism so i can better understand your argument

[gladiatorsteer]

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

Fascism

Socialism

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

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

Both systems demand that you live for something outside of yourself and state that true happiness lies in working for the well-being of some mystical group, whether that be the Aryan Race or the Proletariat. Of course, those are just made-up words, designed by maniacs to enslave the rational among us.

“I do not recognize anyone’s ‘right’ to one minute of my life, no matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need. It had to be said: the world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrifice.”
— Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

[/quote]

in fascism an elite few tell the masses what to do

in communism the masses decide everything (wouldnt you call this democracy)