Yeah, and it’s also convenient to insist that countires such as Nazi Germany, North Vietnam, Iraq, North Korea, and Imperial Japan are capitalist.
How can you fairly debate when you’ve defined the terms with such intellectual dishonesty? Cuba and the USSR aren’t communist, but Nazi Germany and North Korea are capitalst?
Hell, I could come out ahead in any debate on the planet if I were alowed to get away with defining terms so broadly in my favor.
A couple of points in this debate:
A LOT of the world’s Communist parties have a problem explaining how come they did have close ties with the now “non-Communist” Soviet Union. Some of these people have a lot of explaining to do, and quite a lot of them haven’t yet done any. In other words: If someone were in a party or organization with connections to Moscow before 1989, why should we respect his/her opinion now ? I was quite happy to dance on the grave of Denmark’s Communist Party, but the members have since popped up elsewhere, and demanded to be taken seriously.
On the other hand: While I shudder at the thought of having Communists in government, they (or the socialists or red/greens or whatever they choose to call themselves) can actually provide some useful input in a parliamentary setting. For one thing, no industry can put pressure on them in any way, and that has to be a good thing in a politician. Not that I’d ever vote for them, of course.
Norman
Sorry, long one coming up. I really want the title of “Most Long Winded”.
Running a planned economy on a worldwide scale is going to require a decent amount of overhead. For example you will need people to do research to correlate the location of factories for the parts used in making the cars with the location of the car factories themselves, which of course should be near the places where people want to buy cars. Then you have to figure out quotas for each of those factories. Then you have to send people around to make sure that the factories meet these quotas. All this, on a worldwide scale, in every industry, will require a small army of bureaucrats running around to keep it running.
As for incentives to cut down waste, unless someone buys into this system, and you will never convince me that everyone will, and is motivated by pure desire to improve the system, what incentive do they have. In this country, if I were to tell my boss a waste saving idea, I would be rewarded somehow. At the highest levels, GM, for example, is motivated by the knowledge that if the cut waste out, it will enable them to undercut Ford’s prices and sell more cars. Remember that old SNL fake ad with Lily Tomlin working for the phone company? That sort of mentality (albeit less exaggerated in real life) is what you get without competition.
In this country and most other successful capitalist countries the majority of the population can afford a car. Even at the low end of the market there are a few choices. I’ll look into car ownership statistics later, but the assertion that most people in this country cannot afford cars seems ridiculous.
You proclaiming that competition over resources leads to war is not really proof enough for me. You can only support it by using a broad enough definition of capitalism to include Nazi Germany and a narrow enough definition of communism to exclude every country that has ever existed. Football is based on competition as well, but doesn’t lead to war. The US has used the military in the 20th Century a few times, let’s look at them:
1)WWI, after Germany persisted in sinking our ships, and well after the war had started in Europe
2)WWII, after the Japanese bombed our Pacific fleet.
3)Korea, after North Korea invaded South Korea.
4)Vietnam, after North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam.
5)Iraq, after Iraq invaded Kuwait.
6)Bosnia, to try to settle a regional conflict.
7)Numerous smaller conflicts with specific, limited objectives
None of these involved the US initiating force in a competition over resources.
In Nazi Germany, the state provided slave labor to government supported companies. That alone is sufficient to disqualify Nazi Germany from being a capitalist country. The definition of capitalism I am using is: an economic system in which all people are free to interact with each other in any way they see fit as long as they do not initiate force or fraud, where the government exists solely to protect this right, and all property is privately owned. The best approximation of this that I can think of is pre-1997 Hong Kong. The US isn’t doing too bad, and we can certainly use it as an example as long as we recognize that it is still imperfect.
WWII was started in Europe when Poland was invaded. This was not the result of capitalist countries bickering over resources. This was the result of two countries (both dictatorships) agreeing to invade another country. Yes, like capitalism, competition of some sort was involved. That does not at all imply that it was caused by capitalist principles.
It’s not an oversimplification, it’s simply absurd. I’ll go along with the assertion that communism will eliminate poverty for now, as ridiculous as I may find it, and go for the remainder of your argument. Poverty is one of many causes for crime. Greed is another. Some people want more than they can get legitimately. In communism, what people can get is severely limited by the state. Some people will want more, and will use crime as a method of getting more. You can’t honestly expect that having just as much as everyone else is going to satisfy everyone in the world.
In addition, communism makes many things which are commonplace and natural in our society illegal. The free exchange of goods and services becomes illegal in a communist society. It is again absurd to assume that everyone will just go along with this without setting up black markets. People will always be dishonest, greedy and just plain deranged. A police force will be necessary in a communist society to protect the majority of the population from these people.
I call the Great Depression a depression. The economy made it through, bruised, but still alive. The Weimar Republic is one of the things I know the least about, unfortunately. The one principle of
Just a quick note. I will have a response to the last 7 posts by tomorrow morning, maybe earlier if I’m lucky. I am going to try to beat wterj2 for the title of “Most Long Winded”. THE CROWN WILL BE MINE. 
At least in this debate, I’m realistic enough to know there are some posters I could never compete with.
THe problem with sharing equally in the wealth is that the sharing does not increase per capita income. For example, if the per capita income in Haiti is $390/year, sharing the wealth will result in everybody getting…$390/year. It would also remove any incentive to work harder or increase GNP.
People do not work hard without incentives.
I like all of the arm chair communists who enjoy our capitalist economy while decrying it. I would love to see you guys move to a totalitarian communist regime for a year and then ask you how you feel about it.
Don’t think that Mr Z quite made the point hee was trying to make.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Mr.Zambezi:
**The problem with sharing equally in the wealth is that the sharing does not increase per capita income. For example, if the per capita income in Haiti is $390/year, sharing the wealth will result in everybody getting…$390/year. It would also remove any incentive to work harder or increase GNP.
[QUOTE]
Complete income equalisation would undoubtedly decrease per head income. If you were getting 1/n (n=population) of GDP no matter what, why work at all? [aside: the puzzle for me has always never been why did the Soviet system fail but how did they stave off complete failure so long]
If material incentives matter at all, then there is a trade-off between the size of the pie and the equality of the size of the slices. We can surely say that complete equality (=100% effective tax rates) reduces the size of the pie (a lot). We can also state with some certainty that beyond a point income inequality reduces the size of the pie, since a lot of resources are spent fending off the revolting peasants.
Some income redistribution probably makes even the rich better off (assuming that the “underlying” income distribution under “free” markets is rather unequal, how much is hard to say.
picmr
When you have starving masses, you surely have a problem. But that is the type of thing one sees in totalitarian regimes. If the people are convinced that they can’t improve their lot in life they have two choices: Deal with it or create a new system.
It seems to me that communism, by definition creates this type of environment. Without rehashing the lack of incentive argument, if worker X knows that he will never improve his life no matter how hard he works he is more likely to work less hard.
And if there is no private ownership of intellectual property, why bother inventing anything new? I think that the ratio of technolgical innovation of the free world vs. the communist world is pretty telling. Where is the soviet Bill gates or Tom Edison?
If apathy happens on a broad scale, overall worker productivity will drop, thus lowering the size of the pie, thus lowering the size of the slices.
Why on earth would any rational person want to live in a world where there are no rewards for hard work?
While waiting for oldscratch’s next installment, I figured I’d bump this back up. Also, I’ll provide a link to the Communist Manifesto, to hopefully help the debate along. I’m working on reading it, but it just makes me want to bang my head into a wall at times.
There’s a point from the first page I want to respond to as well:
I’d like to state that this is simply wrong. I’m ferverently anti-communist. Currently, I am a college student with really not all that much money. In December, I will graduate and become an ensign in the US Navy. Maybe after four years in the Navy, I’ll get around to accumulating wealth and power. Hopefully, I have shown that I actually believe in capitalism on its own merits, rather than simply spouting what I’ve been brainwashed into. Certainly, communism has no monopoly on people who can think for themselves.
The misunderstanding here is simple. Communism is both a political system and an economic system. Capitalism is solely an economic system, in that it can be implemented by any number of different types of government. A monarchy, for example, can be capitalist in nature–but not communist. So almost every industrialized country in the world, to varying degrees, operates under capitalist principles, including Mexico, Russia, and Germany in all its iterations. It can fairly be said that Nazi Germany and North Korea aren’t democracies; they do, however, have fairly capitalist economies.
To recap: Communism and capitalism are differing economic systems; communism and democracy are differing political systems. However, democratic countries need not be capitalist, and capitalist countries need not be democratic.
Y’all should get your terms straight.
Thanks for jumping in Gadardene.
1 note. I officially, as of this post, hate all computers. If this thing crashes one more time I am going to take it out to the parking lot for a beating. And sorry it takes me so long to respond, I seem to be the only defender of Socialism willing to post on this board. Anyone else who wants to respond to comments, feel free. Please.
**
If you want to believe that the Budweiser frogs and waazup commercials have any kind of usefulness that is completely up to you. If you want to believe that having ask jeeves stickers on bananas I buy in the store serves a useful purpose, go ahead. You will never convince me of it. True it provides feedback to the company, but why is it important for Nike to know whether solid-gold aglets will sell? I just can’t see it.
**
Again, you seem to be able to figure this out and you’re only one person. Are you saying a government made up collectively of the best elements of society would fail where you as an individual succeeded? IF there is NO WAY to determine what effect a command decision will make how can anyone make any decisions. Why don’t the wheels of industry grind to a halt right now? I’m sorry but this argument is not convincing in the least.
**
You did say it wouldn’t work. You stated that there was no way to determine beforehand what result a command decision would have. I take it you are back peddling on that argument. Your argument about efficiency doesn’t hold water either. Having people work together for a common goal is a lot more efficient than having people competing to reach the same goal. Yes, large corporations and governments tend to be less efficient, this is because they operate from a top-down outlook. Communism operates from a bottom-up outlook. Input from the bottom is filtered up where it is taken into consideration and decisions are made. Also why does it matter if it is slightly less efficient? If you were talking about a system that will eliminate world hunger, war, housing shortages and so on, I would think you could deal with slightly less efficiency.
**
The 4% unemployment rate vastly under-represents the total number of unemployed in the United States. It doesn’t count those in prison, those who haven’t actively looked for a job (reading want ads doesn’t count as actively looking), those who have been unemployed for more than 4 weeks are rarely classified, and those on welfare are not classified. Those who work a part time job or 1 day a week for a family member are counted as employed. Unemployment and underemployment are much more prevalent in the U.S. than statistics show. Also, what made you think I was only referring to the U.S. Spain is considered to be in boom times currently, only one thing is stopping them from being an ideal economy, at least according to the Economist, and that is a 22.3% unemployment rate. Let me repeat that 22.3% UNEMPLOYMENT. If you want to say that that’s not large scale be my guest. And yes the booms and slumps are natural, but try telling that to someone who can’t feed their family because of a “natural” feature of capitalism.
**
Hence the need for a centralized government, the ones that you were saying don’t work. The workers in Moscow don’t make the decision. They make decisions that effect Moscow; they also elect a representative to the government to help make decisions on more national issues. You the Siberian worker would make the demands to your representatives. If the representative wasn’t listening you could vote him out and put someone else in his place.
**
You know, when they had revolutions against Feudal societies, replacing it with Capitalism, they didn’t have every little detail worked out. They had a general idea that current society was messed up (as Capitalism is) and that they could do something better (as Communism will be). Now of course Capitalism is a much more advanced system then Feudalism. It’s more organized. That means that Communists have to be much more organized, which we are. But, I haven’t attempted to plan every detail out. Communism is about workers overthrowing the government and taking control. After they do that, they can decide what to do about settling the dispute.
[quote]
**
It’s really easy to defend Communism if you give it m
Interesting debate, however circular it’s become. I’ve sorta been lurking as I don’t have much to add that hasn’t already been addressed.
I think that at this point, the best direction this debate can go is for people to submit pro’s and con’s for capitalism and communism. Then we can compare and contrast those in order to come up with a better overall view of the differences.
From what I can gather, old_scratch maintains that Communism is dependent on strong support and cooperation by the overwhelming majority of the world populace. Is this not basically a component of the “true” communist era you are proposing?
There are some things just about everyone believes: You shouldn’t cook and eat your neighbor. Sex feels good. Murder is not generally considered very polite. Beyond these and other very basic ideas imposed by the necessity of a) remaining breathing, and b) managing to live in a social group, can anyone come up with ANY complex philosophical/political construct which enjoys that kind of support?
These are people we are talking about here, not robots. We have bitter disputes on everything from whether or not to teach evolution in our schools to how best to administer a budget surplus to whether a zoning commission can rewrite the rules to force a topless bar out of town.
One of the main reasons capitalism works is that it relies on something we all have in common: self-interest in the most immediate sense. You may argue that under communism the goals of society as a whole serve self interest, but that is a far less graspable self-interest which is hardly motivating to most people. Over half of the populace bother to vote in the US, many citing the belief that their single vote is too small to make any difference in the outcome. Yet somehow, in a communist world, the worker is supposed to give it his all every day to contribute to the enormous pool of wealth that everyone divides equally? Do you TRULY believe that even half of the people in the world will find this system motivating?
I’ll admit that some things in communism sound pretty-- elimination of poverty, full employment, universal health care, and the like-- but people just don’t work that way. You propose an ideal system that depends on near universal agreement on both goals and methods, that requires people to be motivated to work to the best of their ability for the good of all rather than rewards for themselves and their family, and that must come about almost simultaneously from a historical perspective(a couple of decades I believe you said)?
Is this truly a situation you believe can actually happen in real life? Given your definition of communism, the best that I can say is that it’s actually less likely than the IPU. At least the IPU doesn’t have a mountain of evidence AGAINST her.
Cogito ergo sum…I think.
That should be “Over half of the populace DOESN’T bother …”
Cogito ergo sum…I think.
Gadarene,
North Korea has a capitalist economy???!!
please elaborate.
To fly! The dream of man and flightless bird alike! -Some general on the Simpsons
Okay, I overstated that one. North Korea has one of the most centrally planned economies in the world. I shouldn’t have said that its economy was “fairly capitalist.” However: even the North Korean economy has, to a degree, capitalist features. Their economy is not wholly socialized, nor are all the manufactured goods produced by the state. In addition, North Korea has, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, increasingly solicited private investment by foreign businesses. From a December 1993 issue of The Economist:
All of which is to say that North Korea’s brand of state-capitalism has totally failed, and they’re trying to open up their markets. But you’re absolutely right; I mischaracterized North Korea in my first post.
The rest of what I said still stands, though, about people conflating democracy and capitalism when arguing against communist politics and economy.
I think I’ve actually elaborated on this quite a bit. How about you elaborate and tell us, if not capitalist, what is the economy. Now we both agree that workers have no control over the government, so it can’t be Communist. What would you call it?
I’m going to start asking you guys to back up your claims. Don’t worry I’m still going to post with responses and explanations. I’m just getting sick of people making wild accusations without any proof.
history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce - Karl Marx
history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce - Karl Marx
But see, that is the problem. Evidence against communism is manufactured. People take suposed truths and common sense and apply it against communism. This works much the same way Creationists disprove evolution. Everyone knows that god created the world. And everyone knows that you can’t change human nature. Give me the proof for both of those assertations. I’ll stick with Materialism and Communism any day.
history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce - Karl Marx
Okay, Oldscratch, I’ll take a less forceful position than “human nature can’t change.”
I’ll say that human nature changes very slowly. Our cultural evolution is much faster than our biological evolution, but one is still based on the principles of the other. We seem to be biologically hardwired with our social nature, that allows us to cooperate, with a competitive drive and a sense of fairness, that keeps us on the lookout for our own best interest. Natural selection has rewarded those who cooperate – but not those who are too cooperative, who get walked all over. Even hunter-gatherer societies have ways of punishing shirkers, and policing one another to make sure people do their fair share. Why? Because a) it’s to your advantage to shirk and benefit from the works of others and b) it’s to your benefit to keep people from benefiting from your work. The tension between these two drives colors our social interactions – and it’s at work in the animal kingdom, too.
It even exists on a genetic level. There are genes that cheat, when it comes to reproduction. Egg and sperm cells are created through the division of your genetic material into halves – each cell gets 50% of your genes, which it will put together with somebody else’s 50%. But there are genes that cheat, whose ONLY function is to interfere with that process and make sure that copies are present in both halves. That isn’t good for the organism, but it’s a successful self-interested strategy – as long as the other genes cooperate and make a functioning organism, that gene gets a free ride. Natural selection has also favored genes whose function is to catch these slackers, and keep them from making it to the next generation.
What does this say about human nature? I’m not saying that we’re slaves to our biology, and that anything we do is excusable because it’s “natural.” I’m not espousing social Darwinism here. I am saying that when I’m talking about human nature, I’m talking about something other than flexible culture – I’m talking about the underlying instincts.
Of course, you can argue against this, if you want. Here, I’ll even give you a head start. What evolutionary biologists see as underlying instinct is just a figment of their cultural background; they expect to see competition because it fits with their capitalist mindset. I think that’s a little dismissive of their work, but I’ll admit that the jury is still out on some of this. It at least sounds plausible and fits the evidence.
Does this mean that we can’t overcome this? No, not really. Human history has been a long story of extending our circle of who we cooperate with. First, our immediate kin, because of kin selection (the theory that we’re altruistic to close relatives because they have almost the same genes we do – if you and I both have the gene for altruism and I die so that you might live, that altruistic gene is just as successful as if I had lived and you died). Then, as we gathered in small groups, to the other members of that group. Then villages, then regions, and now nation-states. Of course, the intensity just isn’t the same as we move up the ladder – I’m not as close to a fellow citizen as I am to my family – but there’s some sort of identity there.
Communism requires that I feel an even stronger bond with all of my fellow workers. That my class-identity be strong enough that I sublimate my own self-interest to the needs of the group, the entire society. I suspect (and here’s where my “human nature” rambling fits in) that we may never reach this point. But, even if I grant you that we develop our culture to the point where we do feel this identity with everyone on earth, I argue that we’re not there yet, and we’re not even close to being there, and any revolution before we even approach that point of commonality is doomed to failure.
OK.
First I’ll eat a little crow on the Military question. However I’ll still say that China has a bigger army in terms of absolute manpower, especially when you consider the small size of its navy.
Also, I still think that the Old Soviet Union spent a greater percentage of its GNP on its military than the U.S. although I cannot recall where I got this info and what year it applied to. It may have been before the Reagan era military build-up. I don’t blame you If you take it with a grain of salt. However you cannot deny that Both China and the Soviet Union had enormous armies, as did Vietnam and North Korea.
Now,
I think there is some confusion between Communism and Socialism. Whether or not North Korea is “Communist” or not (Whatever that means) it certainly has a socialist economy. That is the vast majority of the means of production are in the hands of the state, not individuals.
Is this contradicted by any overtures North Korea may be making to capitalist investors. Of course not. All economies mix socialism and capitalism to some degree. In the U.S. the Gov’t runs the postal service as well as things like highway building and rural electrification. North Korea’s economy is so dismal it is no wonder they are desperately seeking cash infusions. Still the overseas investors will probably be negotiating with the North Korean state, not with private counterparts.
Whatever Communism means, there is a pretty clear definition of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned. This hardly applies to North Korea, or to any other gov’t commonly called Communist.
To fly! The dream of man and flightless bird alike! -Some general on the Simpsons