# Communism v. Capitalism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 10, 2002, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184 "2002-06-10T03:12:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2002, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184/81 "2002-06-14T18:39:01Z")
Without any governmental system you have anarchy. I’m sure there’s steps in between, but add a bit of oversite and you have capitalism. Add more oversite (or find a society-sized altruistic group) and you have communism. Like those russian egg people, each system can fit inside the larger, less organized system. So instead of debating the potential for communism, why don’t you pro-communists form your own commune within our capitalistic framework? See how long you can sustain it. Pool your resources, buy the means of production or the ingredients for them, or start from scratch. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2002, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184/82 "2002-06-14T18:54:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by perspective \* > Once again the tacit assumption that communism=totalitarianism. If you want to say that human nature will thwart any attempts at communism and turn it into a totalitarian state, make your case. > Does a classless society imply a central planning committee? How? Who decides where to build roads and where to plant crops? Who decides how many cars and how many televisions to make? Where and how does a 20 story appartment building get built? Other than “the people will get together and decide”, which is not an answer, you haven’t addressed a single practical issue regarding how anything actually gets done in a communist society. A communist society becomes totalitarian when it forces you to “do your fair share” at a job you don’t want to do. I don’t want to be a farmer. I studied to be something that isn’t a farmer. I don’t think I would even be any good at farming. If a communist society needs to increase food production to feed everyone, are they going to come to me and say “your turn to work the fields this week, Brother!” > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by perspective \* > No the actual biggest complaint is that there shouldn’t be people living in poverty _while_ there are super wealthy people. The second biggest complaint is that so much wealth in the hands of a few threatens the democratic process as much as any polit bureau. I can’t help but wonder if you are transferring your own jealousy onto others. I have nothing to be jealous of. I have a good job and lead a good life. I worked hard to get where I am and I resent any implications that some lazy fuck-up deserves the same benefits as I do without lifting a finger. You want an exiting job and live in a good neighborhood? Go get an MBA while you work full time so you can get that high paying job. If you want to smoke pot all day and don’t mind living like a pauper, get a 9-5 job at Starbucks. That’s what a market economy is about. You decide what you want and what you are willing to give up to get what you want. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by perspective \* > Really? I thought capitalism relied on recognizing people’s greed. > Actually that’s capitalism. It’s called profit. Someone buys a product for more than it costs to produce, hence there’s a profit. That’s wasteful. Capitalism relies on a person thinking rationally. A rational person seeks to maximize their benefit and minimize their cost. It relies on using incentives (money) to influence individuals decisions. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by perspective \* > I just went to a cooperative cafe last night. The food was cheap and good. Everyone that worked there was happy and satisfied to be doing so. It didn’t cost as much as a similar cafe run to profit a business owner who didn’t do any work. They even eliminated the need for a manager by making their own decisions. I wasn’t even expected to tip because they were already making enough money from the sale price. I benefitted as a consumer by not paying some capitalist do-nothing and they benefitted as workers too. \*\* That (maybe) works with a small, self selected, group. I would like to know how such a business model works in an organization that employs 10s of thousands. For example, an automobile manufacturer. A society is a closed system with regards to the people. If you co-op is unprofitable you can lay a couple workers off. What happens if and when a communist society can’t meet the needs of all its people? ---
**Author:** ![Tokath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@Tokath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tokath)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2002, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184/83 "2002-06-14T20:48:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*This article asserts that socialism has not worked very well in Sweden. [http://www.techcentralstation.be/2051/wrapper.jsp?PID=2051-100&CID=2051-060702B](http://www.techcentralstation.be/2051/wrapper.jsp?PID=2051-100&CID=2051-060702B) \*\* You are right about that, but we Norwegians have a quite socialist society, and we are on the top (I believe that we are actually #1) on the UN list over the best lands to live in. Then again, we have a lot of oil and only 4 million citizens. ---
**Author:** ![perspective](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@perspective](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/perspective)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2002, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184/84 "2002-06-14T21:14:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \*Other than “the people will get together and decide”, which is not an answer, you haven’t addressed a single practical issue regarding how anything actually gets done in a communist society. Well, if I did present my ideas on that, how would they be different from some totalitarian plan? It’s like asking a scientist to make discoveries without peer review or even experimentation. These ideas need to be shared, discussed, experimented with, and most importantly, agreed upon. I have presented a small scale model that I have seen work. I think it is encouraging and worth further exploration. The first rockets that were made probably didn’t go were they were intended. Some of them may have even exploded on the launch pad. Did that mean we could never send people to the moon? Humans are capable of many things. The real question is: do we _want_ to “go to the moon”? IOW, are you happy with a class society where some people have very little and some have inconceivably huge amounts? If not, you can choose to investigate the answers. > [@](#): > > If a communist society needs to increase food production to feed everyone, are they going to come to me and say “your turn to work the fields this week, Brother!” That depends upon the manifestation of it. Your question is similar to:Does a democracy mean that you have vote on every issue, or does it mean you can elect a representative? > [@](#): > > I worked hard to get where I am and I resent any implications that some lazy fuck-up deserves the same benefits as I do without lifting a finger. You want an exiting job and live in a good neighborhood? Go get an MBA while you work full time so you can get that high paying job. If you want to smoke pot all day and don’t mind living like a pauper, get a 9-5 job at Starbucks. If everybody got an MBA there’d be a lot of MBA’s flipping burgers. Imagine those "lazy fuck-up"s getting all of the drive, intelligence, education or whatever it is that makes you feel that you deserve your place in society. OK now multiply those qualities by 2. Now who’s working at Starbucks? Yet you wouldn’t be any lazier, less intelligent than you are today. Americans work more hours per capita than any industrialized nation (yes, even Japan). Your idea of laziness might be “career minded” in another society. If some people have lots of money, _someone_ is always going to get the short end of the stick. It’s always relative. I don’t think a communist system has to be without incentives though. Sharing property doesn’t necessarily mean the clothes off of your back to me. The means of production are what’s important, the mere idea of personal property won’t bring communism crashing down. Even in Russia, people were paid differently. If you want to work 20 hours a week fine, you’ll be paid accordingly. If you want to work 80 hours a week, I would suggest therapy, but you could be paid for that much work too. The important thing is that you’re actually paid for producing something of value to other people not for manipulating your power to get even more. Different skill levels can also be rewarded too. I’m envisioning some people making 4 to 5 times more than others. This is significant enough for motivation, but not enough to cause the radical imbalance of power in the US today. > [@](#): > > Capitalism relies on a person thinking rationally. A rational person seeks to maximize their benefit and minimize their cost. It relies on using incentives (money) to influence individuals decisions. In my mind a rational person realizes that they are a social animal and are dependant upon others for their happiness, through friendship and love.Therefore a rational individual balances their own needs with the needs of others. > [@](#): > > That (maybe) works with a small, self selected, group. I would like to know how such a business model works in an organization that employs 10s of thousands. For example, an automobile manufacturer. I would like to know too. I don’t think we have enough experimental data to answer that question yet. I could sit here with my armchair theories and you could try to shoot them down, but no questions would be answered without experimentation. > [@](#): > > A society is a closed system with regards to the people. If you co-op is unprofitable you can lay a couple workers off. What happens if and when a communist society can’t meet the needs of all its people? What happens when a capitalist society can’t meet the needs of all of it’s people? There could have been many anwers. So far the needs have been addressed through implicit socialist reforms and government regulation. There are many strategies to deal with problems in a system. Your question is so vague and the variables so complex that I can’t answer it. ---
**Author:** ![Colinito67](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5daacb/32.png) [@Colinito67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colinito67)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2002, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184/85 "2002-06-15T00:58:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > \*\*perspective, you don’t like Dave Thomas? OK, here’s another example: [This guy](http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1997/marapr/classnotes/featurealum2.html). I can talk more knowledgeably about him, because I work for him. > > Started out as just an average, middle-class guy from the West Coast. Went to Stanford, joined the Army, flew planes during WWII (also wrote for the _Stars & Stripes_ during that period). When he got out, worked as a reporter for UPI and a PR person for GE. > > Started his company in 1962, just him and one other person. Today, in 2002, he employs more than 400 people at 28 offices in four countries. The company is still owned by him, so he has no stockholders to be responsible to. One quote in the link, discussing his employee benefits: “If you remove employees’ financial problems,” he says, “the result is a group of experienced staffers who will stay forever. Business Wire’s interests and theirs are the same.” I can assure you this is not just a good sound bite for its own sake. > > The man gives away money like nobody’s business, both to employees and to charities and other parties. He gave $20 million to Stanford two years ago to help fund their new $62 million research facility. He built a school in Israel. He’s sent me to Australia, Germany and Maui in the last two years. > > And he’s just one person. There are literally thousands of these kinds of success stories in this country. You can probably go outside, spit, and hit one. > > Are there barriers to entry? Certainly, and I’m not going to pretend that race and perceived social (as distinguished from economic) class are not two of them. I believe that those barriers should be eliminated, and **opportunities** made as equitable as possible. But the barriers to entry can be overcome. People do it everyday. \*\* I don’t think perspective had a qualm with Dave Thomas, per se. It is just that very few are able to do what he (and your boss) have done. Thousands, like you said. (out of what, 250 some million in the US?) Most rich people inherit their money. Most poor people, no matter how hard-working or ingenious, do not rise far above the economic status they were born with. Perspective (hi comrade!), I believe, simply had qualms with picking one person out and having that person become an argument for capitalism. What about all the people in Dave Thomas’ old neighborhood. Where are they now? Was Dave really the hardest working and smartest person there? I believe (ala Sartre) that we have a responsibility to make the most out of our lives as possible. But I also believe we have a responsiblity to ensure that all persons have a sizable chance at becoming who they want to be. colin p.s. Would Bill Gates have been so rich if he hadn’t partook in some particularly underhanded policies? ---
**Author:** ![dal\_timgar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e57/32.png) [@dal\_timgar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dal_timgar)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2002, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184/86 "2002-06-15T19:22:23Z")
maybe that’s one of the things wrong with the english language, it’s too easy to create new words. Galbraith was a Keynesian. Galbraith knew Keynes. Keynes died in 1946, do you suppose he ever saw a television commercial? this business of CAPITALISM being RATIONAL is a central issue. the capitalists want to claim that they are rational but they want the workers and consumers to be stupid. like Sun Tzu said: ALL WARFARE IS BASED ON DECEPTION the consumers are not taught accounting even tho it is 5th grade arithmatic and they want to sell us computers powerful enough to run a bank. and we are supposed to upgrade every 3 years. as an IBM CE i saw multi-million dollar companies use machines for years that couldn’t touch a 486/66. of course they were not doing multimedia and using GUI interfaces. before he died Keynes was wondering what people were going to do with all of their free time. he never envisioned television brainwashed neurotic consumerism. Dal Timgar ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2002, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184/87 "2002-06-15T20:37:31Z")
> [@](#): > > Most rich people inherit their money. Most poor people, no matter how hard-working or ingenious, do not rise far above the economic status they were born with. Not true, and not true. Most rich people earn the money. There’s an old saying, “Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in two generations”, which basically says that if you’re rich, your kids might wind up rich no matter what they do. But unless THEY continue to do the things you did to earn that wealth, they won’t hang on to it, and their children will be poor. By and large, that’s true. Yes, there is a very small number of families in the U.S. who are so obscenely wealthy that they’ll always be rich. They make up a miniscule proportion of both the nation’s wealth and its population, and whether they existed or not the nation would be pretty much unchanged. As for the poor not rising above their ‘station’ in life, that’s also not true. There is a tremendous amount of income mobility at all levels in the United States. From this link: [http://www.heritage.org/library/backgrounder/bg1418.html](http://www.heritage.org/library/backgrounder/bg1418.html) > [@](#): > > A 1992 Treasury Department study showed that between 1979 and 1988, 86 percent of those in the bottom income quintile moved to a higher quintile, and 35 percent in the top income quintile moved to a lower quintile. 2 > > A 1995 Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report showed that almost three-fourths of those in the bottom quintile in 1975 were in a higher quintile by 1991, and almost 40 percent in the top quintile moved down to a lower quintile over the same period. 3 > > A 1996 Urban Institute study showed that large numbers of Americans move into a new income quintile, with estimates ranging from 25 percent to 40 percent in a single year. The same study found even higher mobility rates over longer periods: about 45 percent over five years and 60 percent over 9-year and 17-year periods. 4 > > In 1998, the Census Bureau reported that, on average, over 41 percent of Americans increased their inflation-adjusted income by 5 percent or more per year from 1984 to 1994. 5 The primary reasons for changes in income from year to year were changes in marital status, changes in the number of workers in the household, and moving into or out of full-time, year-round employment. > > A 2000 Economic Policy Institute study showed that almost 60 percent of Americans in the lowest income quintile in 1969 were in a higher quintile in 1996, and over 61 percent in the highest income quintile had moved down into a lower income quintile during the same period. Not only that, but this isn’t just games with numbers, or people moving back and forth between quintiles because of inflation and such. A significant portion of the people in the bottom quintile moved two or more quintiles over the last 10 years, moving them from the poorest category firmly into the middle class. And plenty of people in the highest quintiles move down, validating the point I made in the first paragraph. There is more social justice in capitalist countries than any of the Communist countries ever came close to. By and large, the populations of capitalist countries are content, judging by the fact that there is very, very little internal strife in any of these countries. Sure, everyone wants to do better, but it seems that most people feel like they have a reasonable chance to achieve that within the system. And they’re right. ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2002, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184/88 "2002-06-17T17:24:53Z")
**Sam** , if you have any recollection whatever of the Reaganomics thread that marked our first, um, waltz, about 2 years ago, you will remember that those statistics you’re bandying have been debunked by several economists, including (as I recall) Bradford de Long (Berkeley) and Paul Krugman (MIT? Princeton?). This is too long a thread already to morph into a debate about income inequality so I hope it suffices to say that Sam’s statistical analysis is, at the very least, debatable. I must strongly dispute that there is very little internal strife in the US. The rate of incarceration has more than doubled since the late 80s, and the US has 5X more prisoners per capita than Canda and 7x more than W. Europe. The US has 5 percent of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s prisoners. Source: _Rich Media, Poor Democracy_ by R. McChesney, p. xx. In addition less than half of eligible voters bother to vote and our last election was a fiasco. Prior to the distractions of the “war on terrorism” there was increasing protest, especially among youth, against corporate control of democracy at home and globalization policy abroad. I am not, FTR, a communist: I am a liberal or, as I prefer, a progressive, and my ideal is, for the present at any rate, the social democracies of Europe (see the “Communist/Gold” thread for more on this if you’re interested). I think that responsible citizens in a capitalist society ought to willingly acknowledge existing problems and injustices rather than attempt to sweep them under the rug or obfuscate them. Anything less is pure ideology of the kind associated with totalitarianism. It is possible to promote social justice, and thereby to increase individual freedom, without rejecting capitalism in toto. That is in fact what has been going on in the West during most of the twentieth century. The recent resurgent belief in the providential powers of the free market is a philosophical throwback and one that, IMO, will continue to backfire. I’m willing to guess that the dogmatic faith in the so-called free market, and frustration with the impoverished notion of individual freedom that underlies it, is one reason why there are so many threads about communism just lately. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2002, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184/89 "2002-06-18T01:05:34Z")
**Mandelstam** : Having just re-read that thread, I don’t see where you refuted any of the statistics presented in this thread on income mobility. That particular debate was on a slightly different topic, although some of the income mobility stats were presented. (I believe you even presented one that made the point I’ve been making - a quote from Krugman admitting that after 10 years 50% of people in the bottom quintile are no longer there. Of course, he chose to use the number of people who went from the bottom quintile to the top quintile, (3%) to prove that there wasn’t that much mobility). But you don’t need to go from poorest to richest to have mobility, and using that as the yardstick is silly. In terms of preventing strife due to poverty, almost any amount of mobility helps a lot, and the significant amounts of mobility in the U.S. are a major factor. Note that I would agree that there ARE many areas where there is very little mobility, and therefore lots of turmoil. But lack of mobility can cause the same kind of turmoil even when the income is relatively high. Consider Atlantic Canada, which has much higher welfare payments than anywhere in the U.S., but a stagnant economy, few jobs, and a lot of anger. As for the rate of incarceration in the U.S., I would agree with you that it’s apalling. I happen to think that it’s not the result of poverty, but of an incredibly screwed up war on drugs, and idiotic sentencing guidelines that remove a lot of discretion from judges. ---
**Author:** ![perspective](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@perspective](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/perspective)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2002, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184/90 "2002-06-18T03:09:19Z")
Inasmuch as there is upward social mobility from the bottom, I would credit socialist reforms and other government tinkering with the “free market”. As many people that are moving up there are just as many moving down. And the bottom isn’t pretty with 11% of americans living in poverty in 2000. Interesting how the drug war sentencing seems to disproportionately affect the poor though doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2002, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184/91 "2002-06-18T07:43:40Z")
Capitalism, like democracy and a number of other things are _necessary_ ingredients for the most efficient and stable social system _but_ they are not sufficient in and by themselves. They require a certain culture which believes in those values and accepts them. They will not work well for a people who culturally do not believe in those values as superior. The fact that in the US there are certain social problems does not in the least invalidate capitalism. On the contrary, capitalism is working well in spite of social problems which are not caused by it. The US is a violent society, with higher crime rates than other countries but this is not caused by capitalism but by a number of other factors which have been discussed in other threads. If the US was not so violent and had a much lower crime and incarceration rate, capitalism would work just as well if not better. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2002, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184/92 "2002-06-18T13:00:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by perspective \* > Interesting how the drug war sentencing seems to disproportionately affect the poor though doesn’t it? \*\* Because poor people spend all their time drinking 40s and smoking blunts instead of working? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2002, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184/93 "2002-06-18T14:29:32Z")
You have to be careful when looking at correlations and trying to draw conclusions from them. Yes, the poor are disproportionately affected by the war on drugs. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the system is biased against them. It could simply mean that poor people tend to do more things that get them in trouble with the law. The truth is somewhere in the middle. First, because rich people tend to be the ones making the laws, they tend to make laws biased against poor people. Hence the difference in sentencing guidelines between Cocaine and ‘crack’, which is essentially the same thing, but used more by poor people. And rich people tend to get better lawyers, and judges tend to treat them more sympathetically. Therefore, Robert Downey Junior can be busted for felony posession 3 times and felony posession of a firearm once, and in total has done what, a year in prison? In the meantime, there is a woman in prison who had a single pot posession conviction when she was 16, and then got caught carrying drugs for her boyfriend. She’s doing 20 years as a ‘multiple offender’. So yeah, the justice system is pretty screwed up, especially when it comes to the egregious ‘war on drugs’. The problem is, none of that has anything to do with capitalism. It’s just part of the social fabric in the U.S. And it needs to be fixed. ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2002, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184/94 "2002-06-18T18:06:00Z")
Damn that’s a cool screen name. Sublime was the finest band ever to grace the planet as best as my ears can tell. I got my screen name from their lyrics also. From their “Pass me the Laserbeam” track, which was a remake of a Don Carlos song. “Loving Dj” is an old generic term from the rasta culture used to describe anyone who is currently plaing good music. “5446” was originally a Toots and the Maytells song, I’m sure you know that. The original is a ton of fun to hear. I saw Toots live once and he replaced the line “was my number” with the line “was Brad’s number” durning one verse. Too cool. > [@](#): > > The bars are always open and the time is always right, and if God’s good word goes unspoken, the music goes all night. Hell yeah. That cat new what was up. Heroin sucks. . . . . Rest In Peace Brad Nowell. You reached more people than you ever could have imagined. You even managed to change some of our lives for the better without ever meeting us. Much respect. DaLovin’ Dj [sub]Oh yeah, and death to commies!!! A dictatorship run by me is the only fair option! [/sub] ---
**Author:** ![perspective](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@perspective](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/perspective)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2002, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184/95 "2002-06-18T19:07:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > Because poor people spend all their time drinking 40s and smoking blunts instead of working? Yes, and their children do too. :rolleyes: If I also mentioned that a disproportionate number of folks in prison were black, would you make the same comment? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \*They require a certain culture which believes in those values and accepts them. They will not work well for a people who culturally do not believe in those values as superior. Oh, what “certain culture” is that? WASP?(just a guess) > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > The problem is, none of that has anything to do with capitalism. Umm… actually everything you mentioned had everything to do with capitalism. You mentioned some of the most salient points right off the bat. Thanks for saving me the trouble. I really didn’t want to go in the prison direction, although it is valid. Funny how that one line of my last comment got the most attention. ---
**Author:** ![KwikStah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47c2d/32.png) [@KwikStah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KwikStah)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2002, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184/96 "2002-06-19T23:16:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Umm… actually everything you mentioned had everything to do with capitalism. I thought Sam had shown how the problems he mentioned were due to social problems, as opposed to innate problems in capitalism. Methinks you’ve never studied Econ, considering you think that social “reforms” like the minimum wage are responsible reducing poverty or increasing mobility, when in fact, these “reforms” simply serve to benefit a certain group at the expense of society. Open a textbook and look at some supply and demand curves. > [@](#): > > But I also believe we have a responsiblity to ensure that all persons have a sizable chance at becoming who they want to be. And you’re a Communist, why? I also enjoyed how your “computer plan” got absolutely destroyed. > [@](#): > > However, according to the US census bureau about 11% of the US was living in poverty in 2000. So not everyone is fine and dandy thank you. I think we’re all concerned about economic inequality. However, there’s always going to be some degree of “poorness” within any economic framework. ---
**Author:** ![perspective](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@perspective](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/perspective)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184/97 "2002-06-20T00:05:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KwikStah \* > I thought Sam had shown how the problems he mentioned were due to social problems, as opposed to innate problems in capitalism. Any “social problems” he mentioned were obviously related to class stucture. > [@](#): > > Methinks you’ve never studied Econ, considering you think that social “reforms” like the minimum wage are responsible reducing poverty or increasing mobility, when in fact, these “reforms” simply serve to benefit a certain group at the expense of society. Open a textbook and look at some supply and demand curves. I assume you’re trying to say that an increase in wage will cause a drop in employment? Works well in a textbook but I believe that it is not conclusively shown in our economy. There are many ways that a company can respond besides lowering employment. Prices can be raised, savings can be found elsewhere, or the profit margin is simply lowered. What is this “expense of society”? > [@](#): > > However, there’s always going to be some degree of “poorness” within any economic framework. Well I guess you can believe that if it makes you feel better. There are other countries that have a lower difference between richest and poorest and fewer people living in poverty though. ---
**Author:** ![KwikStah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47c2d/32.png) [@KwikStah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KwikStah)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184/98 "2002-06-20T01:57:19Z")
> [@](#): > > I assume you’re trying to say that an increase in wage will cause a drop in employment? Works well in a textbook but I believe that it is not conclusively shown in our economy. No, I’m saying placing a floor on the price of labor would cause a drop in employment. Society loses with a minimum wage because it causes a shortage of labor supply, meaning that those who were willing to work at a lower wage now cannot. You say companies can respond to a minimum wage besides hiring less workers. However, if such cost cutting measures were taken, with the minimum wage out of the picture, they could even afford to hire more workers, no? Also, you have to factor in diminishing returns from labor. > [@](#): > > Well I guess you can believe that if it makes you feel better. There are other countries that have a lower difference between richest and poorest and fewer people living in poverty Many European countries, which have even higher minimum wages, have even more unemployment than the U.S. I’d rather have a lower rate of natural unemployment than other countries. If you want to debate the minimum wage further, we could always start another thread. ---
**Author:** ![KwikStah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47c2d/32.png) [@KwikStah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KwikStah)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184/99 "2002-06-20T02:15:41Z")
> [@](#): > > You are assuming that people need to steal. If people had a house why would they take yours? If people had food why would they steal yours? Another typical Communist argument. Basically, people’s actions are motivated by their expectations of others’ behavior. Let’s say in this Communist society everyone is working for the common good. All the results of production are distributed among society equally. Each person has the option of contributing his/her production to society, or keeping it for his or herself. 1. Contribute products to society, and get your share of the products 2. Keep products for self, and get your share of the products 2 reaps better rewards than 1, and since I’m expecting everyone else to be working hard for the mother land, I might as well defect, because society’ll be fine, and I get a little extra benefit, right? Thus, 2’s the outcome. Same thing if I expect others to be selfish. I don’t want to get screwed by having to rely on the common wealth shared by all, so I’ll act selfishly. That’s why people would steal. ---
**Author:** ![KwikStah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47c2d/32.png) [@KwikStah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KwikStah)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2002, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184/100 "2002-06-20T02:18:16Z")
Wanted to make a quick correction: minimum wage causes a surplus of labor, meaning there are more workers willing to offer their services at that wage level than there are spots in firms willing to purchase those services, and that causes unemployment. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-v-capitalism/113184.md?page=6)