Author Topic: Communism  (Read 11206 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Josasa

  • Commando Soldier
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
Re: Communism
« Reply #45 on: January 08, 2009, 04:46:31 pm »
The studies are against you here. Google around. Crap products get sold with great advertising by most major brands, such as MacDonalds or Coca Cola. It is acknowledged that their product is terrible, yet their brand is supremely powerful.
As i said, advertising is a lot, but it is not everything.

Prove that human nature works like that. The family unit and primitive tribal communities had collective lifestyles. It is Capitalism and the atomistic society which is the new 'un-human' belief here, originating in the 1700's. Collectivism is timeless.
I'd say that people feel the need to acquire more wealth because in our society it is how we judge success. The false need is psychologically wired into you that to 'win' life, one must die with the most belongings. In every aspect of modern Media, the acquisition of wealth is an important aspect of life. In pre-capitalist media, this trend is far from true.

While there is no arguing that collectivism has been around, that does not necessarily mean it will stick around for good. One of the basic principles of economics is that humans have unlimited wants, but limited resources. Many major studies have been devoted to the simple act of classifying how people choose to spend their limited resources on their wants.
And while there is no doubt that humans are developed by their environment, want is what defines humanity. It is what drives everyone. This want doesn't necessarily mean that you want to acquire material wealth, it could refer to the want to be loved, the want to produce offspring, the want to acquire power, the want to acquire knowledge, the want to push humanity forward, and even the want to destroy your surroundings.

The amount of work they do, if they work at all (most hire managers) takes no more 'effort' than working in the factory, and it would be easy for the collective to manage such affairs in a democratic fashion.

I never said it wouldn't be impossible for the collective to manage factories, just that it wouldn't be efficient. Having to wait for everyone to pitch in their vote, settling disputes between the different members would lead to stagnation and generally poor management. This is the exact reason why pure democracy wouldn't work.

'I deserve more' = 'I am superior'.
'I have worked hard to get where I am, the lower classes have not' = 'I am superior'.
Rather simple jump of logic.

Since when does everyone that happens to be in the upper class think this? That's what i'm not understanding.

How many working class people have you actually met? In the area where I live we have a strong Socialist history and I know alot of Working class people who give an awful lot to their community.

I live 30 minutes out of Gary Indiana, former steel capital of the world. I live one hour outside of Chicago, the place where the Haymarket affair took place. My entire mothers side worked at the steel mills at some point in their life. My grandfather was able to save up money and establish his own concrete plant along with his brother. I've met plenty of working class people...

So we're calling slavery 'outsourcing' again. I imagined this would happen. The Working Class in one country becomes wealthier, the working class in another is exploited more. Socialists are internationalists, and the working classes are one group.

These countries are getting richer, yes, but the common people are not. Do not confuse the two. A booming economy is created in these countries because they have cheap labour. As people get richer, they become, hopefully, better educated and more capable of class conciousness. Trickle down economics will not work because it is not in the interests of the wealthy for them to work; as a working class becomes more wealthy is becomes more class-concious and realises it's strength.  Then it asserts itself.

Foreign intervention and the actions of third world governments will always prevent this happening, because they need to safeguard the most important resource of all: Labour.

You're the only one calling anything slavery. GDP means expanding wealth across the board. It's not isolated to some specific class of people.
There have been many different countries that have been educating the 'working' class and yet there hasn't been any major communist revolutions in any country in the world for a long period of time. Communism has failed and will not work with the expanded globalism and larger populations that defines the world today.


Edit: I knew i had read this somewhere. Got this statistic from The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria as i mentioned in earlier posts. The share of people living off one dollar a day in China has decreased from 40% in 1981 to 18% in 2004. The economic boom in China has brought roughly 400 million people out of poverty. I consider that to be signs of the working class gaining wealth.

In the current recession, marxist economics have never been more relevant. Socialism does not die, it does not fade away, and it will always come back. It doesn't begin with Marx and Engels; there were strikes in ancient Rome, Socialist movements in the English Civil War and collectivist societies from the begining of human history. It is Capitalism that is the new kid on the block, here. It is Capitalism which is out of date and unsustainable; as it destroys the world by encouraging unethical business practices and pollution. It can only be saved by manipulating governments.

It appears that socialism is already fading.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2009, 05:17:16 pm by Josasa »

Offline Cow

  • Track and Field Jock
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
  • Rad.
    • View Profile
Re: Communism
« Reply #46 on: January 14, 2009, 07:05:05 pm »
By the way, I happen to like Coke and McDonald's. Together even.

Offline exception

  • Atari Combat Vet
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
    • Awesome games blog
Re: Communism
« Reply #47 on: March 10, 2009, 07:54:18 pm »
Aw.....my eyes... fulll of text...
My Recent Blogs :D

My Games List

My Game Blog Welcome to comment your opinions :)

My Twitter http://twitter.com/leagendry

Offline Kcronos

  • Boulder Dasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 3651
  • The Dark Time Lord
    • View Profile
Re: Communism
« Reply #48 on: March 10, 2009, 08:01:49 pm »
Doesn't communism just make the government into one large corporation?  Like a megamonopoly?
* Plank of Wood slaps


GET A HOLD OF YOURSELF MAN. THE REVIEWS DO NOT EFFECT ANYTHING EVER.

QFT

Offline Axelgear

  • Fooblitzky Fooble
  • *****
  • Posts: 4258
    • View Profile
    • Axel's Playground
Re: Communism
« Reply #49 on: March 10, 2009, 08:22:06 pm »
Not really, because at least a business has the sense to not sell something below the cost it takes the make it (As is the case in Venezuela).

Communism is a system that has failed every time because it requires a dictatorship to work and, inevitably, a dictatorship is either corrupt or gives people enough freedoms that capitalist ideals spread and a capitalist democracy forms. As the old saying goes, communism is the most painful path between democracy and democracy.
Axel's Playground - Come see what I'm playing with today.

Offline Daxx

  • Golden Axe Battler
  • *****
  • Posts: 8613
    • View Profile
Re: Communism
« Reply #50 on: March 11, 2009, 07:04:41 am »
Not really, because at least a business has the sense to not sell something below the cost it takes the make it (As is the case in Venezuela).

Just a quick point of interest here:

Many firms sell goods below the price it takes to manufacture (or purchase) them. Price setting behaviour is complex and there is not necessarily a lower bound imposed by the marginal cost. There are many reasons for even a strictly rational business to price below marginal cost.

Taking this analogy across to governments is even more problematic. The point of any sort of government intervention is to correct market failure. If a public good is under-consumed because the market sets the price too high (perhaps related to a high cost), the government may subsidise it. This is the case with healthcare, education and the military in most economies, for examples. A social planner may often provide services "below cost", since the consumption at the cost level is socially suboptimal.

Offline Axelgear

  • Fooblitzky Fooble
  • *****
  • Posts: 4258
    • View Profile
    • Axel's Playground
Re: Communism
« Reply #51 on: March 11, 2009, 07:16:16 am »
In this case, Daxx, the majority of farms in Venezuela are privately owned and, to my knowledge, were not subsidized (Or was the case until Chavez started seizing them/threatening to do so unless they danced to his tune). They simply had price caps set on them that were ridiculously low and military forces stationed at their farms. In fact, one company that only sold parboiled rice, which was not set to price caps, was taken over by the state.

I'm not disputing that there are reasons to sell something at or below cost, as a part of a marketing ploy for example, but it clearly doesn't work here, as there are food shortages bursting out all over Venezuela, and they only get worse with each step Chavez takes to try and bully people into doing as he says.
Axel's Playground - Come see what I'm playing with today.

Offline Krakow Sam

  • Moderator
  • Dungeon Sieger
  • *****
  • Posts: 24481
  • Stern dissaproval
    • View Profile
Re: Communism
« Reply #52 on: March 11, 2009, 07:31:50 am »
Except Chavez has the support of the majority of the people. As far as anyone can figure out, he has been running and winning elections fairly. If there was any credible evidence he was in power unfairly then you'd better believe the US would be breathing down his neck.

I'm not saying I totally agree with how Venezuela is run, but democracy seems to have happened and people chose to have their country run that way.
Sam is basically right, he's just cranky.

Offline Axelgear

  • Fooblitzky Fooble
  • *****
  • Posts: 4258
    • View Profile
    • Axel's Playground
Re: Communism
« Reply #53 on: March 11, 2009, 07:43:04 am »
Democracy... In which Chavez threatened that any city that didn't give him the majority vote would have all funding pulled which, in a Communist country, is essentially sure death. No food, no water, no essential services whatsoever.
Axel's Playground - Come see what I'm playing with today.

Offline Daxx

  • Golden Axe Battler
  • *****
  • Posts: 8613
    • View Profile
Re: Communism
« Reply #54 on: March 11, 2009, 07:45:07 am »
and, to my knowledge, were not subsidized

Ah, there's the problem. Usually in this situation the farmers are subsidised (cf. France, the Soviet Union).

But to answer Kcronos' question, truly communist governments are both monopoly suppliers of state-owned goods and also what are termed monopsony buyers of certain types of labour and goods. You can analogise them to a corporation, though the distinction must be made that the majority of corporations can be considered to be profit-maximising, whilst a government is more likely to be welfare-maximising.

Interestingly, what happens in many countries with some form of socialism (as opposed to full-blown communism) is that public services are run on a competitive basis alongside private equivalents, in an attempt to improve issues with X-inefficiency. This is the case in the UK healthcare system, for example, where there are a number of private healthcare providers like BUPA who compete with the NHS. Further, many public institutions are run in a similar manner to corporations, and those in charge are given corporate-style targets to meet regarding efficiency and costing.

Offline Axelgear

  • Fooblitzky Fooble
  • *****
  • Posts: 4258
    • View Profile
    • Axel's Playground
Re: Communism
« Reply #55 on: March 11, 2009, 07:57:00 am »
Ah, there's the problem. Usually in this situation the farmers are subsidised (cf. France, the Soviet Union).

Which are apparently not adequate, with so many filing for bankruptcy...

Interestingly, what happens in many countries with some form of socialism (as opposed to full-blown communism) is that public services are run on a competitive basis alongside private equivalents, in an attempt to improve issues with X-inefficiency. This is the case in the UK healthcare system, for example, where there are a number of private healthcare providers like BUPA who compete with the NHS. Further, many public institutions are run in a similar manner to corporations, and those in charge are given corporate-style targets to meet regarding efficiency and costing.

In Canada, we have something like this. We have government run hospitals and private medical practices all over the country. As such, while our waiting times for surgery are longer than in other countries, if you're going for a check-up or something, just take your health card and it's done very fast.

Personally, I like the system. I'd appreciate them allowing private hospitals, or at least two-tier ones, but the Liberal party vote those down typically because they're too "elitist". Personally, I say if they can run, there's clearly an economic interest enough for people to spend their tax money/insurance costs to go to private hospitals. At the very least, it'd mean a reduction in our clogged waiting rooms at public hospitals, which is good for everyone involved. All it does now is force everyone into the same overcrowded system.
Axel's Playground - Come see what I'm playing with today.

Offline Huckbuck

  • Balloon Fight Aerialist
  • *****
  • Posts: 4498
    • View Profile
Re: Communism
« Reply #56 on: March 11, 2009, 08:44:14 am »
Axelgear, you can't deny that Chavez has made conditions better in Venezuela, you seem to be on some biased conservatory capitalism. Read these;

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4281

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4182

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Barrio_Adentro


He has done as much for Venezuela as their previous government did for American companies and corporations.
@davidramnero

Offline omegatripod

  • BurgerTime Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 1226
  • Now a brony.
    • View Profile
    • Ask Joe Hoofer
Re: Communism
« Reply #57 on: March 11, 2009, 11:32:21 am »
I believe that Communism is one of those things that would work well in theory, but just doesn't in the end. It's not in human nature to pool our wealth with everyone and be completely selfless.

Offline Null

  • Tempest Top Dog
  • ****
  • Posts: 897
  • ...
    • View Profile
Re: Communism
« Reply #58 on: March 11, 2009, 12:07:02 pm »
The current "working class" is a product of industrialization, a class that moved in on its own will to work in factories as they were needed. Now as manufacturing jobs decline, less people can claim themselves to be of the working class- the trend is towards the service industry.  The working class itself is in decline, a product and now a victim of the changing times. People will go where the jobs are...

Offline Raz

  • Questron Serf
  • *****
  • Posts: 3449
    • View Profile
Re: Communism
« Reply #59 on: March 11, 2009, 12:15:00 pm »
Now we have robot slaves to do our work...  :D