CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
How would it be better then? Its not much of a debate to say "my way is better and your all a bunch of idiots to think otherwise". So tell me how you imagine your communist country fantasy would play out and where are you in this fantasy? Are you Fidel sitting in your mansion smoking cigars eating full meals everyday drinking all the alcohol you want while your "workers and peasants" toil away in the sun so everyone can have a rice cooker and two hours of air conditioning a day?
It would be better because perfect communism is, frankly, perfect.
Unfortunately, there has never been an example of perfect communism in history. Fidel Castro was a dictator, not a communist; neither has any other proclaimed communist in the history of proclaimed communists. There has never been a true communistic society in history, period.
Not in the way Karl Marx envisioned it. And since he was the first to put it on paper, his opinion is the only one that matters in relation to it.
You are, in fact, a fool. A fool if you believe that there have been real communists before in history. That's why it doesn't matter what you say or even what I say; real communism is perfect on paper, and so if it was possible to implement real communism, it would always be better then whatever system came before it.
Having perfect systems like real capitalism and real communism would be splendid if we didn't have extremists like Stalin (one side of the coin) and you (the opposite side of the coin) distorting the definition of communism and making it into something evil, when it fact, it's not even remotely evil; it's perfect.
And we'll never achieve a perfect system, whether real communism or real capitalism or something else, as long as there are people like you who apparently believe that communism is just a synonym for totalitarianism, or that other various perfect systems are synonyms for totally imperfect systems that they simply are not according to those that wrote them down on paper originally.
Again, that's because creation of perfect communism has been attempted, but always failed.
Of course. Humanity is and was too young for it. Who's to say we won't be ready for it one day, though? You?
Yes, but it has become apparent that imperfect capitalism is more effective than imperfect communism.
The point of all my arguments on this particular debate is that I prefer true communism over true capitalism. Argue from that point or there's no purpose in you disputing me believing in real communism.
"perfect communism", i think you meant to say a non distorted form of communism, putting perfect in front of anything makes it perfect doesn't it? if communism was perfect wouldn't it have been implemented already regardless of the opinions of the masses? Marx said that we would all eventually progress to socialism and then communism, in his historical economic timetable, but he never really explains in full detail what it would consist of; unless you take the communist manifesto into consideration, which was a pamphlet, that he himself said was unsubstantial, more of propaganda piece.
It can be argued that on small scales and in a generalized way communism has existed. An example might be primitive communism, ie, egalitarian hunter-gather societies with low levels of labor specialization. This system isn't perfect in that it lacks a great deal of productive capability, but it does possess numerous traits of communism. The open source community may also be seen as a communistic production system.
It could be, but none of that, like you pointed out, is communism to the letter. I can agree that it's primitive, but not the perfect system our evolution will eventually lead us to.
Stop listening to that brainwashing horse shit. This country has never been anywhere near true communism; it is apparent that you have no knowledge of what true communism is even like.
If the United States is anything, it's Corporate Fascist.
The fact that our very lives are controlled by big business lends credit to this. We have no power and the government has no power... under big bucks.
True communism is quite far from this. In fact, true communism is damn near the opposite of this. Thank you yet again, monkeyboy142, for showing the depths of your idiocy in relation to politics. You know nothing about them; period.
I tend to agree with you on this. No nation in the world has successfully achieved true communism yet. We've seen Leninism and Satanism amongst others but not Marxist's true form of Communism. When we do achieve this, we may find that its better that what we have now.
Im not even sure how to argue with a statement as stupid as this, are you a 10 yr old child repeating things here that you pick up from your bigoted father at the dinner table?
communism is so munch better everybody is equal so theres no problem and its just a bunch of workers and peasants i want to help the poor. Stell from the rich and give 2 the poor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-comrade vladimir lenin C C C P
Peasants are those who are under a lordship, and workers are similar.
Communist theory concerns itself with the relationship of production to individuals and people at large, but with a preference to granting each control over their own means of production, in most situations this is only possible in a collective fashion(ie a limited one) but with modern technology its becoming more and more possible individually. Wikipedia is actually pretty good on the providing well written accuracy on the matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
No one has a voice in democracy, republics, or "people's" goverment, just ask the citizens of the North Korea Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the People's republic of china, the Lao People's Democratic Republic...
"what is in a name, is a rose by any other name? That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet."
Robjohn, apparently democracy has nothing to do with voting or does the above quote hold? I suppose if we call poop a rose and a rose poop they would take on each other's smell... The same as north Korea is a republic eh?
How the hell am I going to ask former communists if a communist society hasn't even existed? That no freedom thing is a complete LIE! North Korea is not communist!
In a communist system you have no choices. You work for someone els, you become what someone els wants you to be you cant choose what if any god you want to believe in unless its in secret. You live your life for "The common good" but it doesn't make anyone happy it makes all men slaves with no voice. Capitalism is the greatest idea thought up my man and only in this system can your true human potential and good be achieved.
Anarchy and communism are two sides too the same coin, other then some administrative functionality the state withers away and every one has control over their own productive capability. They main difference between a communist and anarchist are how to get to this communist or anarchistic state, one wants a intermediate socialist state(possibly top down, possibly not) while the other wants a bottom up, smaller scale immediate result.
If you actually read the various theories instead of buy into the unfounded propaganda made during the cold war you'll have a better understanding.
Also, capitalism without limits leads to vast income inequality, to the point where most of the population has just enough to survive, perhaps to also supply a family. Consider the times and places where capitalism has faced little regulation.
" Consider the times and places where capitalism has faced little regulation"
Ya, like right now in the developed world i.e. "A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned 1% of global wealth.[10] Moreover, another study found that the richest 2% own more than half of global household assets.[11]"
You work for someone else? Ever heard of this thing called collective rule? Do you know that is why we become communists? To end classes and to overthrow the Bourgeoisie ?
As you know, V.I.Lenin is "a grandfather of Russian Revolution and communism". But do you know this historically proved fact that Lenin when he was dieing, said that capitalism is a the best system world ever knew. You can argue, you can say that he was too old and ill to think and talk clearly. But ,another fact is New Economical Politics that took place in 1921 to improve country's tough economical situation. So, what was Lenin's action to make stability in USSR, to get out from crisis? He began to use commercial or capitalistic methods in economics! This politics existed for seven years and had a great consequences in people's life. So, although Lenin's ideology was communism, he used capitalistic manners in his practise. And, by the way "Stell from the rich and give 2 the poor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is a crime, isn't it?
Yep, take everyone's money, give it to the government and let them decide how to redistribute it. That's what Obama wants. If you like that idea, and mostly if your African American....keep voting
Well stealing's wrong and the poor are poor because the don't work. So the workers get punished for working and the lazy steal money from them. Its wrong. And at least capitalism allows freedom.
Well stealing's wrong and the poor are poor because the don't work.
Right, because poor people just sit around all day, content to suffer until they day they die since it's so much easier then not starving to death as a result of looking for at least a simple job...
The fact that you think the poor are poor because they don't work makes you a pseudo-Nazi.
There is not a single poor and/or homeless person in existence that is lazy. Do you think it's possible for somebody to be so lazy that they just let themselves become poor? How much of a fucking idiot are you? Nobody weighs the choices of work and starvation chooses to starve! This does not require critical thinking!
The government has acknowledged this fact for nearly an entire century now, because their culmination of intelligence over an entire century has apparently be at least 100% smarter then your obvious banana-brain.
The poor do not steal from anyone; they reclaim through the government what was taken from them.
The only flaw in this is that when the government uses tax dollars from the Middle Class to pay the poor... they cannot pay back the Middle Class. This is because: 1. There is an entire political party bent on helping the rich, the only people in this country who don't need help, by letting them pay almost 0% of the country's taxes, taxes that the government could give back to the Middle Class in return for paying the poor and 2. The rich are rich... they have the most power in the country, so it doesn't matter how many entitlements you give to the poor if the rich continue to stop deciding to hire the poor just because they don't want to possibly loose some of that money they will never use... Therefore, the poor, despite help from the Middle Class, will never have a chance to join the Middle Class because the rich won't hire them out of greed and selfishness!
As you can see by that previous flow, you are full of shit. Go move to South America with all the other German war criminals, you pseudo-Nazi.
The only money being stolen from anybody is the money that the Upper Class stole from the Middle Class which created the Lower Class.
Wow, you could have at least came out swinging by saying "most" or "some" of the poor. Well since you didn't, I will have to say you are the idiot. Of course most people who are poor in the U.S.A like it. Why not, for the majority of them, they have cell phones, cars, cable T.V. and free health care. For the ones that roam the cold dark streets, they choose that life smoking crack under the bridge and don't give a rats a$$ if that life ever ends. You need to take a hard look at the rest of the world when you say poor or poverty. The united states had a .00000001% poverty when compared to the rest of the world. People in Africa are literally starving to death by the thousands each day with no food, shelter or support. "poor" people in the U.S. Are literally living without Days of our Lives and X box by the hundreds. Really?
How often do you see Americans in a mile long line trying to get a loaf of bread or a 80 pound man and his starving family surrounded by flys sitting on a street corner dying left and right. You don't, those are poor people. People in America that are "poor" have iPhones and 4000 calorie a day diets. The truly poor are very far and between and have chosen that life from drug, life style or don't care about it. The bottom 40% of all Americans don't pay any taxes. The top 40% of Americans pay 60% of taxes. We live in an entitlement nation. Gimme gimme gimme. "you have more than me, so give me yours" mentality. So sad!
How often do you see Americans in a mile long line trying to get a loaf of bread or a 80 pound man and his starving family surrounded by flys sitting on a street corner dying left and right.
If our government weren't smarter then you in giving our poor entitlements, our poor would be this bad off, fool. Are you trying to advocate our poor being as bad off as the poor of other countries? So we can't help the world means we shouldn't help our neighbors?
People in America that are "poor" have iPhones and 4000 calorie a day diets.
No they don't you fucking idiot. The poor in this country survive without homes or only with dilapidated homes. The eat only what they can find in the garbage, what is given to them by donation organizations (usually religious ones), and what they can purchase with food stamps.
You advocate me using semantics about the word 'poor' when you have no idea what being 'poor' in America is yourself.
The truly poor are very far and between and have chosen that life from drug, life style or don't care about it.
Nobody chooses to suffer, even if they are mentally ill. You're just as retarded as monkeyboy for this statement alone. You have no credibility.
The bottom 40% of all Americans don't pay any taxes. The top 40% of Americans pay 60% of taxes
The bottom 40% pays about 6.6% of our country's taxes, since they cannot afford food or to hold onto their dilapidated home if they pay more taxes then that. The middle 39% of Americans pay 60% of taxes, and the top 1% pays no taxes because they bribe both Republican and Democrat Congress to make sure they can horde their endless wallets.
We live in an entitlement nation. Gimme gimme gimme. "you have more than me, so give me yours" mentality.
Considering all the poor in the world, including this country, are poor because they were born into it due to their families having all their money stolen from them by the rich, there's nothing wrong with this mentality.
Wow, you could have at least came out swinging by saying "most" or "some" of the poor. Well since you didn't, I will have to say you are the idiot.
I could have, except monkeyboy is complete moron and I didn't need to use semantics to dispute him properly.
Of course most people who are poor in the U.S.A like it. Why not, for the majority of them, they have cell phones, cars, cable T.V. and free health care.
To have all these things, except perhaps the free healthcare, puts you in the Middle class, fool. Nobody with all those things is impoverished. The very nature of being impoverished is to have so little money that living is nigh impossible to be comfortable.
For the ones that roam the cold dark streets, they choose that life smoking crack under the bridge and don't give a rats a$$ if that life ever ends.
Have you ever been impoverished? No. So you don't get to choose why they do anything. Every human in existence does something for some reason that relates to the quality of their lifestyle. Assuming that homeless drug addicts choose to be drug addicts because they didn't think it would help them not suffer is pure maliciousness.
You are a malicious human being. Oh, but who cares! You have more money then the poor, and therefore you are comfortable enough to not care about how good a person you are!
People in Africa are literally starving to death by the thousands each day with no food, shelter or support. "poor" people in the U.S. Are literally living without Days of our Lives and X box by the hundreds. Really?
People in Africa would be able to be somewhat as comfortable as the poor and extremely poor in this country if international corporate tycoons didn't steal everything from them. Africa, since the beginning of it's discovery by the rest of the world, has been pretty much had all of it's resources economically sucked out of it to the point that most of it is barely past the Stone Ages.
You wanna know why people were able to fuck it up so badly?
You can't have either in their pure form. Communism (socialism in its purest form) does not work for the obvious reasons and ends in poverty. A laissez-faire economy is just as dangerous as communism though. Human beings are a greedy species and therefore must be governed through a series of checks and balances, like the U.S. government. In terms of the economy, these are regulations. Without regulations, corporations are free to do whatever they see fit in order to maximize profits such as: outsourcing or firing mass employees and putting the responsibilities left on those that they allow so graciously to remain (as we have seen recently with the loosening of regulations). Therefore, the only good economy is a delicate balance between socialism and capitalism, not unlike what existed in the 1950's.
There is a reason Communism has been tried many times, and each of these countries became "third world countries." If you look back in history, many countries, such as Russia as one example, have become absolute shit due to communism. No matter how hard we try, communism can't be achieved; making it impossible to be better than capitalism. I mean, if there was one million dollars on a table, you were a police officer(equivalent to being a Government officer in those countries,) and you had the choice between sharing the money or not, you wouldn't would you? Well that's what eventually happens in those countries. History has shown time and time again that communism doesn't work, and no matter how many times we try, it really won't become better than capitalism- "survival of the fittest, the way nature was intended"
Communism is better but not the type you are talking about. Your talking about the dictator type, and though I love the Soviet flag, I'm not really for the Stalinist type Communism. I lean more towered the core of true Communism. If your for true Communism like I am. That puts you like one step up from being a complete anarchist. I still think we need laws, and some form of control, so that's what separates me from being an anarchist.
Update: Forgot I already replied to this topic. There is no delete option.
I have always been a bit argumentative regarding this cuz I admire the communistic ideals and I appreciate their thought process. I do not condemn Capitalism either cuz a lot of country's success relies on it. But, a communistic attitude for various things is essential today. Especially in mine.
Capitalism as of a matter must be used appropriately which lacks in certain areas. Mixed economy as it is said is the Best of all is one of the ways to tackle capitalism.
Hence, I believe that a communist attitude is required.
Well Communism does not have freedom. And The government ,which owns the market in Communism always fails. Just look at history. And capitalism has freedom and that makes risk which makes people choose things more carefully.
Just look at history? That is impossible, since no human civilization has ever been communist in the history of the world. Communism is simply too perfect for it to have been implemented in it's truest form in the past.
Forget everything you know about communism. The Soviet Union was never communist, China was never communist, Ancient Egypt and Rome were never communist.
Karl Marx is probably the most misunderstood historical figure ever recorded.
Stop pissing on yourself by assuming that you know anything about communism when apparently you don't; if you think history is an example of communism, you are utterly wrong.
"That is impossible, since no human civilization has ever been communist in the history of the world. Communism is simply too perfect for it to have been implemented in it's truest form in the past. "
This is completely true, and its a fact that escapes people far smarter than monkeyboy142 (e.g. PrayerFails).
"The Soviet Union was never communist,"
I agree completely, even in its early days under lennin it was never remotely communist, but most people who demonize it either don't know this or chose not to except it.
I wasn't sure which side to post this, but in the end you have to wonder if this argument even works? Communism is a form of government, wither it's good or bad is in the eyes of the person doing the talking. Capitalism is a form of market system, which is really just about the root of all problems going on right now, since the way capitalism is being allowed to run nothing good is coming from it. Innovation, Freedom, peoples right to live are all being destroyed because a few think the have a "Right" to billions of dollars.
i believe in social power and equality. Capitalism is good for the rich, but what about the millions of poor people in places like America, Russia and Mexico.
Capitalism is based on distributing pleasure (wealth) by ability in business. Ability in business is not a valid way to determine those best suited to experience pleasure. By equalizing the pleasure (wealth) of all people, we value all conscious sensations rather than just those experienced by those who are lucky.
China isn't comunist, in fact it never really was in the stricitest sense of the word, but it definitely isn't now with its large private sector, market based economy, and its open border policy with regard to FDI and trade. China has been slowly implementing reforms for decades that have made their system more capitalsit than communist, albeit an authoritarian capitalist system. China today is at best a semi-capitalist/semi-communist society, and thats being generous to what little communist ideals have survived in the countries political system.
China doesn't have a private sector. Everything is either owned or controlled by the National Government. If anything they are Fascists and Communists, just siblings from the same collectivist family of tyranny.
China isn't comunist, in fact it never really was in the stricitest sense of the word, but it definitely isn't now with its large private sector, market based economy, and its open border policy with regard to FDI and trade.
Really, China isn't communist. Then, why is the ruling party the Communist Party? Is it because it makes them feel good? Maybe, they are just stupid and confused.
The Communist Party, though allowing some economic movements in response to market forces, still maintains ultimate authority over virtually all economic decision-making. The state-controlled financial sector often allocates credit based on political criteria, undermining economic efficiency and productivity. Beyond sporadic attempts to facilitate nominal openness to foreign investment or to imply currency market liberalization, recent years have seen the virtual cessation of economic reform and an absence of political will to undertake more fundamental restructuring. Heritage
"Then, why is the ruling party the Communist Party?"
Becuse that is what the ruling party calls themselves.
"Is it because it makes them feel good? "
No, its because it justfiies the control of the state has over the country as a whole, its economy etc.
"Maybe, they are just stupid and confused."
No i think this is possibly the mostly unlikely reason of all actually.
"The Communist Party, though allowing some economic movements in response to market forces, still maintains ultimate authority over virtually all economic decision-making. "
Not all but i will conceed you you're not too far off the mark on this assertion, i still don't understand how this disproves anything ive previously stated about China and how they are not a communist country.
Why would communists want to move to a minimally progressive non-communist society?
I need to read more of Lenin, but what I have read of him tends to be countered by Marx in some fashion.
Its why I have started to considered Marxist-Leninism as an oxymoron, at least when applied in certain manners and a good number of American communist have done likewise, often rejecting things like vanguardism and the like, or in other words they may be described as classical Marxists, and if they are marxist-lenists, they tend to be trotskyists.
Marx is one of the most misrepresented people of history, he even wrote to his son-in-law who was advocating some ideology that was claimed to be based on Marxist principles that "if that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist." I think he could say the same to numerous other so called "marxists", such as stalin, mao zedong, etc.
What delusional drugs are you taking? Ones that apparently make you think an attempt to be communist makes you a communist. It doesn't. It's like saying you're a Christian even though you commonly commit murder. Trying to be something and failing doesn't make you the something you failed at trying to be.
Have you even payed attention to what communism is?
There has never been a purely communistic society in history, and its very probable that there never will be. You are beginning to sound like McCarthy.
Considering China isn't communist, why would we believers of communism move there? That's like telling every hyper-liberal in this country to move to Texas; it makes little to no sense.
Whether you believe it or not a capitalistic society is run by consumers "the people". If the people want local organic food and that is what they buy then the corporations and businesses provide it for the people. If the people don't want gas then they stop buying it and companies provide something els or they all go out of business. America is what we have made it and we can make it anything we want thanks to capitalism. I you want to go live in a commune and grow your own food and run around naked=) then you can if you want to make tons of money and live in a mansion you can. Capitalism is awesome.
Actually, whether or not local organic food is available depends on a large number of factors, demand is just one of them. Consider climate, technology, economies of scale, political institutions, etc.
Wealth is also not a function of one variable(effort or desire), but actually has a lot to do with your ancestors. After all, if it was just a function of desire, wouldn't we all be rich?
You are nit picking those are examples of my argument. Everywhere in America you can grow something you have water you have soil you have seeds then you can grow something local and organic.
I know wealth is not a function of one variable but basically if you don't want money you wont get it and if you do then you'll do whatever you can to get it and if you want it but don't want to do anything to get it then you blame your ancestors and hope that someday your country turns communist so other people have to work to get YOU something.
Its generally true, try to find one counterexample.
Good luck growing anything valuable other than evergreen trees and timber during the winter in the north of America with just water, soil and seeds. Even if you can grow an ever green, that doesn't mean you can grow it profitably if your neighbor has more soil than you, since economies of scale will kick in and he will sell his product below what is profitable for you till your business disappears from lack of customers.
Just because you'll do anything to get it doesn't mean you will get it, and it may very well be that your grandfather lost his farm to the sands(look up dust bowl) so him and his son had to move to an urban center, work as unskilled laborers in some factory, leaving you with little to no inheritance, a crummy education and so on and so forth. Consider the reasons why poverty is higher amongst minorities, particularly blacks, could it be that their schools tend to be less effective and their jobs lower paying, and could those conditions be such due to previous segregation, enslavement, and so on or so forth, or is it just because they actually want to live in their crummy small apartments with the heroin addict next door and put up with their violent gang bangin cousins down the road(or perhaps they just don't wanna try)? Seriously, self-interest is inherent to every human, people are not poor because they consciously choose to act against their self-interest.
btw, owning your own means of production generally means your the one working at what ever productive machine you own, unless you employ people :)
well its been fun guys but I've got to go to work now. Ill be back though this is a lot of fun even though I'm varsity out numbered in this Communist favored debate. I wont take it personally that you all think I'm an idiot. I know I'm right and thats what matters to me, oh and of the majority opinion in America =) Have a good day.
What people don't realize is that the private sector is very able. Bo
Allow me to present you with this situation (my father is the head of neuro at Mercy Hospital in Chicago):
He often see's women, in their early 20's, with 4 tattoos, 2 packs of cigarettes, an iPhone 4, and they have 5 kids.
WHAT?! There is NO damn reason for these people to have all of that! Oh yeah, and they "hurt" their ankle on the job, so they're collecting disability. And they're on welfare.
I totally believe in helping 65 year old war veterans, but NOT 20 year olds who think that they're too good for McDonald's.
Culture doesn't always lend itself a helping hand to those in need of one.
If somebody is smoking cigarettes, especially more then two packs a day, it's because they're unimaginably stressed and need some sort of legal fix that's not as expensive as anti-depressants.
If somebody has 5 children, then it's because they are constantly in emotional need of a devoted lover for them to function in the world, often leading them to be desperate in this area. Since they can't afford contraception, this often also leads them to having children.
Now... do you truly think that a person chooses this situation because they want to? Do you truly think they choose to suffer because they're 'too good for McDonald's'? I'm sure there are one or two people in the Lower Class whom think they have it good and don't need to work...
But you cannot tell me that most people, no matter their age, are poor because they choose to be poor. That makes no sense and is a breach in empathy; it's an avoidance excuse so you don't have to think about why they got in such a horrible situation in the first place!
But I can tell you the truth as to why they are in that situation. It's because this country and it's systems are not tailored for the average manual laborer. And if you're apart of an ethnic minority, you're in twice as much trouble. To think that your white skin does not protect you in comparison to a different color of skin, then that is obnoxiously naive.
I'll explain to you now then why the rich are responsible for this and all of this: Since the beginning of the first robber barons, companies have always had the most power in this country. If they horde money to indulge their greed, and never use this money, the value of the American dollar goes down. If they spend almost all of this money expanding their business, the value of the American dollar goes up, and then goes down again once the rich being receiving twice as much money.
The truth is that the rich do not work; they are the only ones who don't have to. Even if they aren't extremely wealthy, they don't have to work. It only requires about 5 million dollars to live a convenient life the rest of your days without ever working, and yet all people in the Upper Class are, frankly, millionares.
Once the robber barons came into existence and proved that this country cares more about supposed 'freedom' in relation to the government then it does about letting everything be run by greed and only greed.
So now you ask, how did this poor person with 5 children end up in this situation? Well, they didn't choose to, but the reason why is simple...
They were born into that situation.
People have been born into the Lower Class since the birth of the Upper Class. And since the Upper Class controls the market and, therefore, the entire country... they don't need to hire poor people to labor for them. Why should they? Why should they hire a poor person who might be a liability to this and that aspect of this single establishment? Blah... blah... blah...
When you take more then you will ever use from the market, from the country, you will always take from what somebody, somewhere, needs. People do not choose to be poor, they are forced to be poor. Entitlements at least give them a chance to not die, and living with excessive pleasure gives them a chance to not die sad.
What would you do if you were born poor? If you were born poor, and every job you ever had, you lost because you made a single mistake? I've seen how mainstream companies treat their workers; if you make a single mistake in a place like Wal-Mart or Apple Bees that causes somebody to complain specifically about you, just once... your ass it gone. And if you're that black/Latino/Asian/young person, then well... it's pretty easy for you to be singled out among all of the white, adult, people/males that work around you!
Our system is not fair and unjust. Getting rid of all or any entitlements is not right and not the solution. If anything the solution is the one that nobody really cares to put out into the open -
You've definitely enlightened me somewhat, but please, there is NO excuse to have 5 children and smoke cigarettes while you're below the poverty line. There is simply NO reason. You need to wake up and smell the drugs that these people are cooking in the projects and realize that SOME people are just LAZY. It's as simply as that.
Even if your mother is a crack smoking prostitute who is constantly bringing home guys and is rude and ignorant, that is NO excuse for you to grow up to be that. If you've stepped one foot outside of your house you have to have SOME idea of what is right and what is wrong.
You've definitely enlightened me somewhat, but please, there is NO excuse to have 5 children and smoke cigarettes while you're below the poverty line.
I've just explained what the general excuse is. Even if they can't explain it themselves, a psychologist can tell you exactly why cigarettes and sex help people cope with being born into poverty. If you think there's simply no reason, then you obviously can't even attempt to imagine exactly how difficult it is to be poor.
You need to wake up and smell the drugs that these people are cooking in the projects and realize that SOME people are just LAZY.
Believing that any person who's suffering is lazy is only an excuse to ignore their plight. Don't be that way. Nobody, in the history of human existence, has been so lazy as to choose doing no work and suffer as opposed to sincerely trying.
I know it's hard to believe that there are so many people suffering out in the world because our system won't allow them to get above their current positions due to our system's extreme flaws, but... you need to be realistic.
And I assume you're just being unrealistic, because if you weren't being unrealistic thinking the way you are, then you'd instead be being utterly evil.
Even if your mother is a crack smoking prostitute who is constantly bringing home guys and is rude and ignorant, that is NO excuse for you to grow up to be that.
Really...? Have you ever grown up with a mother who is a crack smoking prostitute who is constantly bringing home men alongside being rude and ignorant?
... No?
Then shut the hell up. You don't know shit about what it's like to be poor and what it does to a child.
If you've stepped one foot outside of your house you have to have SOME idea of what is right and what is wrong.
Of course you would; everyone who's ever lived has had SOME idea of what is right and wrong. But if you are so unfathomably poor, so culturally and mentally and physically and financially rejected from even Middle Class society, then what is right and wrong? What is right and wrong when you have to fight to survive every day?
Stop applying your morals and ideals to suffering, starving people whom have to commit crime and cheat everyone around them just so they can eat. If you would just open your eyes and really try to put your own consciousness in those sort of shoes, you'd soon realize exactly how much of a fool you are to think that these people are homeless and starving because they CHOOSE to be!
Enough with the blame game.
How about... no? Not that? Hm... what about... no? Huh? I can't say no? Well then, good day, sir. If you want to sit in your fantasy world where all suffering, starving, unfortunate people in this country are put that way by their own choice, then be my guest. I hope your offspring see past such ignorance and grow to be a better person then you.
You have done something that happens very rarely on this site, you've changed my point of view almost entirely.
I'm sorry to have caused such hostility. Let's agree on something. Welfare is very, very broken.. Throwing money at people does no good. Would you, perhaps, be in support of government run system that TEACHES impoverished people about making the right societal decisions?
Can you please admit that some people are lazy, however? I know from personal experience. I worked at a soup kitchen for 1 year. Watched the same sane people come in and out daily for that year. I found jobs in the newspaper and online. They have access to both. (Public Library).
There are many, many cases of hard working lower-middle class SINGLE moms who work three jobs to support their 2 kids. They aren't on welfare. Why aren't they on welfare? Because they MIRACULOUSLY found a job? No! Look me in the eyes, metaphorically, and tell me that there isn't ONE job in you're city.
You have done something that happens very rarely on this site, you've changed my point of view almost entirely.
You have no idea the depths of respect this statement holds. I am honored. No sarcasm. Sincerely.
I'm sorry to have caused such hostility.
I was actually getting ready to apologize for my own, but I was up and down voted, so I didn't get the chance.
Let's agree on something.
Karma is going to ironically turn the tables on this statement and make it difficult to achieve.
Welfare is very, very broken...
Yup, I knew it; hit the nail right on the head. DAMN YOU KARMA~!
Throwing money at people does no good.
It doesn't do any good when the rich refuse to give jobs to the poor.
Would you, perhaps, be in support of government run system that TEACHES impoverished people about making the right societal decisions?
I explained to you why the plight of the poor has nothing to do with their decisions. Being born into poverty and denied the ability to be educated or work is not a choice.
But, would you, perhaps, be in support of government run, totally free education for all people of all financial statuses? It would solve a lot of problems for the Lower Class, and better help to uplift them alongside entitlements.
Can you please admit that some people are lazy, however?
I'm sorry, but no. You cannot make me admit that a single starving person is lazy. Who in their right mind doesn't work hard every day to not starve? Nobody! Because you die if you don't eat! Even if it involves begging and/or breaking the law? That's all work. Entitlements by themselves are not handed out to every poor person, and to the people it is handed out to, it's never enough to pay for food and housing for life for even one person by itself. It's simply impossible, and I know, because my entire family is disabled (except for me, at the moment) and they all get disability checks from a genetic illness. It's just a small compensation for suffering; not enough to eat and live a moderately comfortable slum life.
I'm sorry, but we cannot agree. It simply is impossible to not do work to survive. Maybe it's not formal, but it's work. The same way a bear has to work to survive in the wild.
I know from personal experience. I worked at a soup kitchen for 1 year.
There aren't many soup kitchens, or kitchens of any kind, in the slummy part of town, nor many kitchens that would hire a slummy person to work for them if they traveled half an hour from the slummy side of town just so they can apply for a job. I just don't see it even a little. They'd be better off trying to pickpocket food then attempt going through that grueling process.
Watched the same sane people come in and out daily for that year. I found jobs in the newspaper and online. They have access to both. (Public Library).
The internet and newspaper require money that the poor do not have, since they need to keep all their money for food, clothing, and meager shelter. As for the public library... how do you expect a poor person, born into that living condition, to live in a slum that has a public library? How do you expect them to know how to get to a local library slightly outside a slum? How do you expect them to know how to look up jobs at the local library when I doubt anybody would even them want them entering the library since they look 'suspicious' either due to ethnicity or uncleanliness of some sort?
There are many, many cases of hard working lower-middle class SINGLE moms who work three jobs to support their 2 kids. They aren't on welfare. Why aren't they on welfare?
Because they weren't apparently born into impoverish conditions and therefore knew how to handle their situations. It's one thing to be extremely tight on cash and/or in serious debt, it's another to not be able to afford to even bath.
Because they MIRACULOUSLY found a job? No!
Actually yes, it was because they miraculously found a job... since it's a miracle to be born white and closer to the Middle Class then the Lower Class. It's especially a miracle to be born of a different ethnicity and be closer to the Middle Class then the Lower Class AND somehow convince some business, big or small, to hire somebody who likely doesn't even have a complete high-school education.
Look me in the eyes, metaphorically, and tell me that there isn't ONE job in you're city.
(Metaphorically looks you in the eyes)
There is not a single job in the city I live in that would hire a homeless or impoverished person.
MacDonald's and all other big businesses like it would rather have a teenager instead of a homeless person. All small businesses, whom need to compete with big businesses, would rather have an exceptionally talented or educated person instead of a homeless person. That's how it is, here and everywhere.
Well... wait... is your town special?
Do you see homeless people all the time when you visit various businesses? Do poor people commonly perform everyday services for you and your neighbors?
... Of course not. Because truly poor people and homeless people couldn't get a job even if they tried. Which they do. All the time. And never succeed. Because our system doesn't work.
I hope this response wasn't too hostile. In all sincerity, I became much calmer when you humbled me.
I think it's safe to say that you've entirely changed my point of view...
You must forgive me, I've never understood how truly poor and uneducated someone could be if they were brought up in some of the slummiest conditions in America.
But, would you, perhaps, be in support of government run, totally free education for all people of all financial statuses? It would solve a lot of problems for the Lower Class, and better help to uplift them alongside entitlements.
Yes, of course, that sounds ideal. And you have nothing to be sorry about, I often get explosive when I'm fired up in a debate.
And also, I do FIRMLY believe that the best medical treatment and the best education should be available for everyone.
I think it's safe to say that you've entirely changed my point of view...
I think it's safe to say that you're the first person I've ever met on this website who has opposed me and actually change their mind. You have made my faith in humanity flourish... which could be called a narcissistic quality of me, but you have to have faith in yourself to have faith in everyone else. Especially if you're correct.
Thank you.
You must forgive me, I've never understood how truly poor and uneducated someone could be if they were brought up in some of the slummiest conditions in America.
You are forgiven.
Since the dawn of American mock capitalism, big bucks have always taken up the big power. Successfully, corporations have, for over a century, brainwashed our culture into generally believing that it's right to look down upon the common laborer and/or impoverished person. They want the majority of America to believe that the creation of the Lower Class has nothing to do with the actions of the Upper Class, even though it has only to do with the actions of the Upper Class.
But since they have the big bucks, have the ability to influence culture this way with the propaganda they buy. Brainwashery is cheap when you can get unlimited money from people that work for you.
Forgive me as well if my proclamation of you being brainwashed (though now cured) by corporatism is an insult to your intelligence and, therefore, honor.
Yes, of course, that sounds ideal.
Everything that has to do with real communism is ideal... such as free, uplifting tools like education. And housing. And food. And...
You get my point, ha ha.
And you have nothing to be sorry about, I often get explosive when I'm fired up in a debate.
Who doesn't? I can't exactly not feel sorry for my humanity... considering my humanity also includes a conscious. Though I appreciate the sentiment.
And also, I do FIRMLY believe that the best medical treatment and the best education should be available for everyone.
This is why you shouldn't listen to the far left or far right in politics either. Socialist and communist ideals are a good thing in relation to human living conditions, such as education and medical treatment. ;D
Considering, the experience of my country (former-Soviet Autonomous Kazakh Socialistic Republic), when there were not any basic freedoms that we have right now ( freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of religion) life is way better than back in the time. The "legacy" of communism still has its impact on the abandoned villages and manufactures. The soil has been destroyed, because central government wanted to squeeze as much as possible from farmers and wheat-growers. I am not blaming USSR in the all current problems in modern Kazakhstan, moreover there were a lot of heavy industry developed during 70-s.
However Semey nuclear tests, is now ecologically unstable region. The rattle is dying number of Semey region citizens have radioactive diseases. Furthermore the land is not useful anymore for more than 200 years.
Even though there were some beneficial things USSR did to Kazakhstan, still there are a lot destructive problems that came with the breakdown from Soviet Union. If I were to go back I would not be joining Communist, but it is what it is, and I am glad we live in capitalistic modern society where you will not be oppressed and have basic freedoms.
Maybe the real question should be is "Free Market Capitalism" (Reaganomic Capitalism) better than a "Democratic Capitalism"(my parents generation was the last of the great generations (I grew up in the 1960's).Good paying jobs were abundent,the American worker was the backbone of the country,and "Made in America" kept the whole country employed."Free Market Capitalism" is just as bad as COMMUNISM.Fewer Americans have the realistic opportunity to reach the "American Dream" than at anytime in history.
Hey I couldn't find "What Real Communism Is" by this Carl Marks guy. I'm assuming that along with the asshats in D.C. right now, some of the idea is to control the markets. Pick winners and losers, subsidizing or paying for goods from the companies, state-funded, that get passed around to all the people. Which completely destroys any semblance of competition and improvement. Competition in the free market spurs innovation. The corporatist plots to save struggling companies that needed to go under in a healthy business cycle of what should be a free market, was opposed by virtually everyone. Yet there are still people blaming it on capitalists? Hey talk to the heads of those companies and they'll probably tell you it was a great idea, but they're the corporatists who came up with it. People, especially self-proclaimed "communists" always talk about the evils of capitalism. Let's talk about the evils of Unions for a second. Do you know in some states there's a costly review for service businesses that are just starting up, if there is a unionized group that offers the same service, entrepreneurs (the people that cause economy growth and standard of living improvements) aren't allowed to start the business. Did you know that shortly after the new deal, since Black people weren't allowed to join construction unions in some states, they would just offer their services for slightly less, providing competition in the market (the thing that causes economic growth and standard of living improvements) so the unions, who couldn't stand those niggers taking their jobs (see a parallel?) lobbied local governments into making it ILLEGAL to offer a service for less money than unions. Effectively putting all of these workers who were providing a valuable service at a better price out of work. Unions are pretty god damn bad organizations. In some states less than 1% of teachers are fired annually for performance-related issues. Are teachers really that good? Every university in the whole damn country must be pretty good at making teachers right? Or it's just impossible to fire a teacher even if they aren't teaching kids well enough. Anyone see how that might cause some problems for the kids they are educating? If one thing is clear about capitalism and communism, it's that capitalism can take anything and make it faster, cheaper, stronger, smarter, and with a nicer paint job, in half the time it would take a public sector. The period of incredible growth this country experienced when so many new technologies and sciences were born, literacy spread like pubic lice and the standard of living increase took our life expectancy to about where it is now, happened in almost completely unregulated, unmeddled, free markets, where businesses were free to live and die in the name of progress and had no influence over the government, or vice versa. And the companies that fucked up, got sued, in the wonderful court system we have that, at the time, wasn't crowded by people smoking a plant like people have done for four thousand years! YAAAAAAAAAY CAPITALISM!
If you do not know your opponents position, then you do not fully know your own.
It is also good practice to make sure you know what your talking about before you talk about it.
1. The Necessity of competition for improvement.
"Necessity is the mother of invention". People still have needs, competition or not. While competition can certainly add to the difficulty, there are ways of large scale co-operation which doesn't involve a planned economy that can better allocate resources. Where those ways are not applicable, government regulation can actually improve industry performance(look at the car industry). Also, the recession is due to de-regulation, the repeal of parts of the Glass-Steagall Act. Also, NASA and nation wide highways were only possible at the time of their creation due to government support.
Simply put, examples abound of ways less competitive models or even government involved models can be even more efficient then unregulated capitalism.
Consider open-source software development. Its nature is drastically different due to technological considerations then producing other products, but it works. It also creates a culture, and a political mindset. In the open-source community you can find a nice microcosm of what I would like to see in the future. The "base" or economic productive capability is what creates the "super structure", or politics, culture, etc. You seem to be approaching communism as if it is a superficial attempt at a quick fix, it is much more.
2. Unions
Unions are only useful up to a certain point, then they become reactionary. We have surpassed that point in most industries in America, but a few industries and the economies of other companies may find them useful. Further more, they derive from the basic right to freely associate and are a result of worker interests. There are reasons union membership drastically went down just a few decades ago in the states. Eventually, the union becomes an entity unto itself, almost independent from the workers and it is then that it tends to become a problem.
As for firing teachers, its actually beneficial to the good teachers for the bad ones to be fired, so long as the bad ones are a minority that is. This means firing them should be good for the union as well, except teacher pay isn't strongly related to their performance and so the less stable members the less the union becomes payed. Eventually, good teachers pay to keep bad teachers so that bad teachers can continue to help pay for all the teachers voices. If schools could find a way to make teachers pay based more on merit then unions would be more willing to fire bad teachers so that they can be replaced by good ones. (cause it means more money, of course there would be a time delay between changes in the pay method and union policies) Of course though, implementing such a program would be tricky and difficult but doable.
3. Historical analysis of capitalism effects on production.
Yes, capitalism is effective at production. Its even better when its properly regulated. Consider stocks, without a government agency and laws for reporting accurate information businesses may find gaining trust from investors more difficult, resulting in less demand for stocks and less funding from IPOs and stock sells. Consider regulations on emissions, which may increase costs but it does so industry wide, so that every company must improve their technology(it provides the initiative the market may lack). I could continue with examples. Also, yes regulation can also harm improvements in technology, like the current patent system. However, not all regulation is bad regulation.
Finally, I haven't really argued for communism, but rather against an idealistic black and white interpretation of several economic issues. I hope I've added a little grey, maybe even a color or two?
The Karl Marx thing was a joke of course. I'm familiar with his manifesto and I know how to spell his name, I can clearly read after all. I've never subscribed necessity as the mother of invention. I think it's Frank Zappa. Another joke. Seriously though, desperation is what drives true change, especially in a worldwide economy where the fates of so many might hang in the balance of the fate of one corporation. Hypothetically, if we ran out of crude oil tomorrow, I guarantee that hundreds of companies would spring up in addition to those that are already there, to deliver alternatively fueled automobiles and the infrastructure needed to convert the world's economy to running on hydrogen or what have you. This is the beauty of capitalism. No system is perfect, and no system is going to give absolutely everyone a fighting chance for success. However capitalism comes a lot closer than any communist society would. It is proven to increase the standard of living everywhere it lands. Look at India, where a vastly impoverished population now has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. While there are still a lot of problems, and bureaucratic inefficiency, they are definitely coming out of the same kind of rut the U.S. was in, in the early 20th century/depression era. The common misconception I see is that unregulated capitalism caused the depression, poor working conditions, and the vast disparity between the upper class and lower class. This simply is not true. First of all, immigration drastically increased the population of the country, and most of the immigrants already had nothing or less when they got here. So yes, they worked in sweatshops, and were injured in factories, but most of all they saved, and saved and saved, and opened up storefronts and businesses across the country. Secondly, in this economically charged era, we were coming off the heels of the industrial revolution, if not still in the midst of it. This revolution which modernized so many aspects of our society, I'm sure I don't have to tell you, was spurred by capitalism: "How can we make more product, faster." This was a dangerous time to be an unskilled laborer, and it was hard, but through the hard work of the quarter a day workers and child laborers, the factory became a much safer place due to the fact that it simply is not profitable to have a dangerous work environment.
Your comment about open-source would be correct, maybe it will be in a few decades. The big problem I see with your idyllic analogy (I love free stuff too) is that you can't assemble a car on the internet. You can't mine coal, stitch a dress, or make a cheeseburger with a few lines of code that represent your contribution to the global collective. Real products need real ingredients, and tangible workers, skilled or unskilled. People seldom work as hard or as well when there's nothing in it for them unless they gain from the product as well, such as the case in open-source development. It's hard to prove an unskilled worker's gain from dealing with ignorant, selfish, and gluttonous customers in a drive-thru line when they aren't being paid. This is where the part about no system is perfect comes in. Yes, I would love to live in Star Trek too, where the human race has become enlightened and moved on from our petty squabbles and simple motives of having more than our neighbors. But we don't and people who believe communism is the answer simply do not have a grip on the way the world works, and the way progress is achieved. If Henry Ford's company had been bought up and made to comprise the entire automotive market, we would all be driving Model T's or something very much like it. I would say that, while cars have had a lot of additions due to government intervention, the cars themselves, the critical components, speed, performance, have never benefited. I can tell you if the government never intervened in the automobile industry there might be more automobile deaths annually, there may be more emissions, but the average persons car would probably cost about $500 as opposed to $15,000.
As for unions, I can tell you no industry needs unions and they never did to be honest. My dad is in the service industry, he owns his own corporation which has only ever had three employees, himself, my mom, and me. Because he refuses to pay someone to be able to do his job, many potential employers that have need of his valuable, but relatively cheap service can't and won't hire him, because they are contractually obligated to hire only union workers. Where does the worker benefit from that? My dad sure doesn't, pay money to work, or bust his ass to get the same amount of work? I know which choice most people would pick, the one that doesn't flatten their wallet. That's just a personal experience to shed light on my own feelings on unions. While I may be biased I think I'm pretty fair in saying that Unions only hinder progress by not letting workers have a right to their choice of hours, workplace, pay (If I'm on my own and only need to provide for myself I should be able to take a job for a lower salary than they offer if it will improve my chances of employment), etc. As for teachers, honestly if the current tax code were scrapped, replaced with fair tax and the government were much smaller (Gary Johnson 2012) I would say we should do away with teacher unions and the department of education. Privatize it! Suddenly an entire new industry pops up, and it becomes the goal of businesses across the country to give the best PRODUCT (Child's education) for the lowest PRICE. I think this would put less of a strain on people's wallets than is assumed, and would probably be an all around improvement to the way things work now. Parents suddenly become a lot more invested in their child's education when it's actually an investment. This creates a home environment where children everywhere, are pushed to their learning limits (of which there are none, for young kids).
As for your analysis on Capitalism's historical effectiveness I would just ask you to keep this in mind in the debate against/for communism. The Federal Government, as much as it would like to be, can't be everywhere at once. They can not possibly regulate all the bad actors out there, and most of the bad actors have bought the government anyways! Communism can only work in terms of the community. PEOPLE everywhere have to make the voluntary choice to support everyone in the community, regardless of their status. I don't know many people who would do that, some and believe me they're great people, but not many would right now. Maybe in the future. The bottom line is the government can't just write the rules like that and make everyone level, or as close as it can and say "Good enough." A. Because that's fascism. B. because governments are inherently inefficient and are incapable of that kind of global monitoring, and C. because for all his speeches and debates, whoever spear-heads this movement is still going to be placed in absolute power over everyone's assets and is going to take advantage of that. As we know, and have seen, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Communism doesn't work simply because human nature won't allow it to. Until it does, Capitalism is the best chance we have of getting further.
As for your statement about deregulation causing the current recession, this again, is simply not true. This is the classic mistake of seeing two events in sequential order and drawing a connection simply because one happened before the other. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that the main government institution for regulating the markets, the SEC, has been too busy with investment banks' asshole to do any actual regulating. Further this entire recession was caused by bad regulations, and the SEC's guarantee that when investments went south, the government would bail them out, in some sick attempt to avoid another depression. The banks had no real reason to avoid failure or measure risk sanely, because the only thing they had to lose was taxpayer money, and they don't give a fuck about that. I'll direct you here: http://reason.com/archives/2009/06/19/the-myth-of-financial-deregula for more information on this and similar misconceptions. I'll agree with you that some regulatory measures are good, but far less than actually exist. Capitalism is a lot more effective, and a lot better at creating peace and prosperity when the markets are left to regulate themselves. For the most part, schemers and sharks get sued or other court action that removes any credibility, and since capitalism is consumer-driven, the rest of it is up to us. Consumers need to start taking responsibility for what they buy and thinking for themselves, this will be reflected in the market. But hey, those are just the facts.
I can repost with boldings of what I've replying to if you'll prefer.
If oil ran out tomorrow, the barriers to entry of green energy would drop dramatically, if the social results of such a thing weren't too bad, then you would see an increase in the amount of small businesses and the some of the old oil and large green energy firms from the past would likely buy up a lot of them. Large companies tend to invent and change slowly. Yet they dominate the market, and make it difficult for small innovative firms to start up. If oil ran out tomorrow,and shortly after we had a green energy society then yes the resiliency of capitalism would be shown, as would how it withholds technological improvement.
People immigrant for economic and political reasons, their arrival in large numbers will cause political and economic changes, those changes are a result of how capitalism responds to immigration. A different response could of theoretically of been observed under another system. Its like blaming the out put of some circuit solely on the input of it, and not considering the circuity between the ports. Why was it such a dangerous time to be an unskilled worker? was it because capitalism puts little value on health under certain conditions, once conditions change and people organize against previous conditions(thus changing them, perhaps by government regulation) it does stop being profitable to run an unsafe factory but that is only true under certain conditions. (else, why was there unsafe factories to begin with?)
Further more, most businesses will be started by the son's of European immigrants since European immigrants were the majority, weren't discriminated against, etc. These will tend to be the lucky ones, since their peers and most of their peer's fathers were too busy providing the basics to save. Most people today are laborers due to the economic system they are in, not everyone can own a business.
Really, we're only a few technological leaps away from assembling a car quite differently then they are now.
Open-source is one of the needed technological leaps, in a few hundred years every one could very well have their own energy plant(advancements in green energy will allow for this), manufacturing plant( Advancements in maker-bots and Reprap tech will allow for this), and green house for food, wood and plastics.(bio tech and previously mentioned advancements will allow for this) Once that is accomplished, a car can have its plastics grown for free, parts made for free, assembled for free, etc. All that would be required is the right technologically advance base, and the super structure arising from that would be very communistic. A lot of people try to imagine communism from the current base, and it is then that it seems an impossible pipe dream.
Communism isn't so much the answer, as it is the result of them.
I imagine drive-thrus won't exist in the future, because people won't find much utility in them.
Yes cars cost more, because the unsafe inefficient ones reliant on old technology can't be sold now. The question is, if they could of always been sold, would that advance technology which superseded the old of developed as fast(if at all)?
Your describing situations after unions are needed. Unions are needed for when workers are tired of working next to 12 year olds and watching them lose fingers, of when they are tired of seeing the company make large profits while finding it difficult to take care of their family despite working for them most of their life.
Does it have to be a particular union, if not he might be able to make his own; depends on what the state thinks apparently(maybe the rest of your family could make a "union")
I'll leave fair tax, education privatization and so forth for another debate.
The "government" is actually pretty small in a communist society(or even "non-existent"), it might be large under socialism though. Communist understand that government can be used as a tool for rapid change and to sustain a level of living conditions in periods and conditions where capitalism may not regard them highly. There are limits on regulation, and for each regulator a new regulator needs to be to watch them( and thus inefficiency, but some can be better than none if done right). Your right, communism can only work in terms of the community, and your right the government can't be too authoritarian, and so forth. Communities are the result of the material conditions they live under, and in the future you will see a radically different community if we can get the base, technology right. Considering current trends(which are yes a result of capitalism in some aspects) then we should have that base in a few hundred years.
That was an interesting article, but despite its intentions it appears to support good regulation over bad or no regulation, that a combination of bad regulation with no-regulation is well, bad. Would we of seen the same results due to only the bad regulation, if de-regulation wouldn't of happened? Surely, some of the happenings in the financial sector would of been quite different.
schemers and sharks can only be sued in a court of law, ie where there is some sort of regulation.
Capitalism may be dependent on consumers, but suppliers are a major force with in it. For example, I would buy a green nerd energy drink weekly if it was supplied again to my area, instead I must buy an alternative, or pay a substantial sum at once for a large amount of them online which I know would be drank by my family, friends and me with in two or 3 weeks.
You're implying that Unions improved working conditions. Unions did nothing to that effect. They organized the workers true, but the same thing could have arisen if one person took a company to court for not providing safe working conditions. The advance of technology through capitalism is what brought us these excellent working conditions we're comfortable with now.
I believe that a lot of my point was that Communism is simply impossible for the time being. It hast to come from the bottom up, and include everyone. Right now people are still trying to scramble up the socioeconomic ladder, a process only possible in capitalism. My big problem with the communist crowd that's around today, is that they keep espousing the evils of capitalism, when they really owe more to capitalism than any one person or visionary. Capitalism is the best way to get us from A (cavemen) to B (scientific and technological limits) because people want to earn something for discovering it, aside from just recognition. That's not how I feel necessarily but it is how most people feel. So yes, maybe in a few centuries, when everything that could ever be invented is, we can be communists and see that it's the only way to exist with things being like they will be. As for the here and now however, communism will simply not work. Capitalism may have some nasty pilot fish tagging along but it's the only reasonable way to achieve fast progress.
As for the soda thing, you have the power as a consumer to gather other consumers who enjoy the drink and ask the company to start selling it in your area again. What they're gonna say, "No, we don't want to make any more money, sorry, we're not going to sell it there." ?
That is assuming that an individual could bring the company to court, which isn't always possible for various reasons.
That is also assuming the individual would win, a union would be much more likly to win against a company in court, since collectivly they have better resources and a better case then individually.
Unions can force improvements in working conditions by collectively denying the labor needed for the work, in-till demands are meet. Eventually, the cost for denying them their demands damages the company more then otherwise, so they yield. These demands can be something like more light in the factory or a better air filtration system. The decision to invest in safety of a labor force which may be in abundance and unskilled, is one a company will be reluctant on doing due to its own interests. Thus unions makes it in their interests. If the labor force was scarce, then such investments would be in their interests. The strike creates that scarce condition artificially. Why does the supply of laborers effect the companies interests, its simple supply and demand.
Most communists envision a transitory stage which accelerates the coming of communism while maintaining worker conditions and such. This stage varies greatly, and is a source of much disagreement; its typically called socialism. Capitalism has been a powerful force, and it can be one for good. However, it does have some nasty pilot fish so to speak, and things can be done to help lower their population, one of those things may be good regulation, unions up to a point, and so forth. It really depends on the prevailing conditions what should be done. Its quite certain you shouldn't try to skip a vital stage of development like what mao or lenin try to in the USSR and china. However, That stage of development can be modified such that its quicker and less destructive.
The economies of scale needed for a sustain supply is relatively large, and the conditions for getting most people to sign a petition while still giving the company accurate forecasts of sustainable demand is cost prohibitive and most people would likely consider it too sweet. It might work on my college campus as a brain boosting agent, but my area of residence wouldn't find that attractive and I imagine most of the small population of potential brain boosters are already on stronger chemicals. I could try, but the chances of success doesn't seem to out weigh the risks.
In today's United States, companies are a lot more transparent, and accountability is a lot easier to provide. I think regulatory measures for the most part don't work and only slow the process down. Maybe in the 1900's people needed to organize and form Unions to represent themselves, but that isn't the case any longer. It's been a long long time since unions accomplished anything worthy of praise. The fact of the matter is, we were still a developing country then, and technology was a lot more unproven and unsafe then. The way the world works, we would get a lot more accomplished with global free trade, open borders, and an unregulated market where the only "regulation" is a businesses wikipedia page and reviews that can spread like wildfire through the internet. Thanks to this wonderful communication device we're speaking on right now, any serious problems on the part of a business result in an almost immediate drop in sales as a disciplinary measure.
You can only trust companies to be transparent if it benefits them, if not they may just maintain the appearance of transparency. Consider Enron's accounting scandal.
I'll agree unions were more effective and useful under past conditions, I actually think the threat of unionization is more effective if its taken seriously; since a would be union's demands are meet and the later problems of unions further down the road are avoided. If a union came around asking for members where I worked, I doubt I'll sign on. Unions derive from free association, and should be protected as a facet of that right. A union can kinda step on the toes of that right itself though, by creating close shops which is a sign that the union lacks confidence in their own utility and is likely becoming useless.
One of the main problems in a market economy is availability of vast amounts of accurate information and how to use it, While user reviews can aid improve information, without regulatory bodies some information would be available only from the company, which may have interests in being deceptive. If we want to be proactive rather than retributive, we can't relies on catching companies with their pants down. If a toxic material provides a competitive edge, there is likely a company willing to put it in toys and not tell their consumers. Unless a private organization can provide bias free safety checks on products to keep other businesses honest, some level of government involvement would be needed.
Well, do you think that if the markets were truly free, there wouldn't be some enterprising young fellow who sees the need for a fact checking and investigatory service? Perhaps offering a seal of approval for safety and health concerns that consumers trust and buy more than products without? This way it's advantageous for a company to practice safe and responsible business practices. All I'm suggesting is that there are plenty of Free Market solutions to these problems that people have been supposing there is no solution to.
There are a lot of free-market solutions or approximate solutions for many things and your proposal is one of them, however it can't make sure that all products in a certain class meet certain requirements before they are sold rather it may boost sells of those that do. If the goal is to insure that products which can cause major, society wide health concerns, like lead in gasoline, are not used; then it'll fail but if its use is to verify a property of a product, like not having lead in it or not causing wide scale health concerns, then it may very well succeed. It could replace things like the usda's certified organic seal. Apparently, such an organization has already been implemented to verify fair labor practices: http://www.fairlabor.org/
It still has the potential for bribery and deception itself, which could be practically eliminated if there were multiple companies doing the same and fact checking each other. Companies paying for a lot of seals of approval basically saying the same thing would be expensive, likely increasing their product costs relative to those without them. In all likely hood, 2 or 3 large organizations providing seals of approval would arise. This could work for verification and promotion of products. I still think the FDA should be around to actually stop something like a zombie creating virus to be sold, since the other private organizations could only state that it doesn't satisfy their tests for safety and thus lacks their seal of approval.
Stalin was evil, he killed more people than the nazis did, all because of his communist ideas. capitalism is free and good, communism is foolish, especially the idea of every getting the same pay.
stalin for your info was no real communist, stalin did not kill more than Hitler, you don't really know what communism is you don't know the evils of capitalism. Stalin was loved by the people. USSR was not comunist
From USSR history all of us knows that communism is not a useful and productive system because USSR had collapsed. If we talk about China and their "communism", so, it is not a real communism which Marks and Engels preached. It is a mix of totalitarian regime and commercial relationships. Commercial or market-oriented relationships as you may know are traits of CAPITALISM. So, we can see that China becomes the most developed country not because of their political system, but because of well-oriented changes in economics- market, there market exists. hat about a real communism- there are no place for market, for private property. Thats why capitalism is better than communism.
Capitalism is better. Communism enslaves each individual to the community. Capitalism allows each individual to be free and independent.
Communism never makes progress because individuals are not given a just reward for improving things, while capitalism constantly improves. Communism lacks the economic freedom of choice to the fullest extent possible, in Capitalism people are free to choose what they want. Communism gives the lazy as much as the hard working, while capitalism allows each individual to sell their labor, creating a result where the hardest working are rewarded in accordance to how hard they work. In capitalism each person is independent, in communism each person is interdependent, interdependence is a form of slavery. In communism people work where the central Government tells them to, while in capitalism they work where they want.
How is it determined who does what for a living in a communist system? Does a pizza delivery person earn the same compensation as a brain surgeon? Will there still be pizza delivery people? I can't buy into the idea until I know.
Then go look up what real communism is, by Karl Marx, according to a multitude of different dictionaries. If you can't buy into the idea until you know, then go find out before taking a side!
hen go look up what real communism is, by Karl Marx, according to a multitude of different dictionaries. If you can't buy into the idea until you know, then go find out before taking a side!
I had to be on one side or another didn't I? At any rate, could you just indulge me? Will there be pizza delivery people and will they be compensated at the same rate as brain surgeons? I looked up both questions and couldn't find an answer to either.
Pizza delivery people will likely still be an available role, and brain surgeons of course are needed. Both will be compensated for their hard work with what they need in proportion to how hard they work. A brain surgeon will likely be given more material compensation since he is so much more needed, but only in a way that is fair in relation to how hard he works.
He is not given, of all things, more power, and the ability to grow his power based upon no additional work. He receives compensation fairly in relation to his work. Even if he messes up once or twice, communism does not scorn him for being human; he will always receive what he deserves for his work; nothing more, nothing less.
The pizza, delivery boy, which I do not know if the job will even be needed or not, will have the same treatment. He works, and he is compensated for his work. He doesn't work as hard as a brain surgeon, but the delivery person will always, at the very least, be compensated with what is required to live comfortably.
And now that I think about it, it would definitely still be a job that would be present in the perfect communist society. Just like all other jobs, being a delivery person would be a free service to those people who worked hard to receive it.
And also in this perfect communist society, you are, for the most part, free. Education is free, and all service required to live comfortably is free. It is all free as long as you play your part and help your community, even with a job as lowly as a mail-man or maid-girl. Since education is free, you will always be able to learn how to support your community more over time, and receive slightly more material compensation for your harder and harder work.
Do you see how this works now? It's a very fleeting, perfect system; though I did end up simplifying it considerably. Unfortunately, 'fleeting' isn't a good thing; that's why, in the history of the world, there has never been a society such as this. Not ever; only totalitarianism... which makes me a sad man.
I suppose there are multiple ways a communist society can be organized, but what you described reminds me more of a transitory stage, socialism. Alternatively to what you described a superabundance of resources in relationship to need and advance productive ability, combined with some-type of automated delivery system would make most service jobs obsolete.
I consider collective ownership of some production capabilities and so forth to actually be a late-stage socialism very close to communism.(since it still allows for tyranny of the majority in areas which shouldn't have it) I can lay out how I envision a successful progression from capitalism to communism might occur. However, thats several paragraphs.
I've always imagined a full communist society to be without money or strict tracking of labor, for a diy attitude and willingness to learn and share quite freely to replace the current hording attitude. To do that, a perception of risk when it comes to the basics needs would have to be eliminated(which means advance technology) and the higher needs of maslow hierarchy should then take care of the rest. I actually consider the open source production process to be similar to what I imagine, except instead of just computers and software you can add replicating CNC machines, 3D printers, laser scanners, opensource designs, etc. Which would eliminate most of the market down to plastic, wood, etc the raw materials of a thing. This would make the market more efficient, since supply would better match demand. If you combine that with a decentralized green energy production system(perhaps owned by co-ops at first, then individually) which freely gives to the grid along with green houses, and wet labs(or bio-labs) food, plastics, and so forth could be grown/made at home or in a close by co-op( basically eliminating the market(except for land, which is the one thing I'm not sure of, any idea how land might be exchanged? i'm guessing this is one area a co-op or government type thing might have to be involved with). As for doctors and so forth, if someone enjoys that work they can do it for free, since it would satisfy their higher needs of Maslow hierarchy(as it does now, just it wouldn't also satisfy their lower needs since those are already provided). This system would quickly become world wide once it becomes efficient enough, meaning most national differences would be eliminated since those are closely tied to differences in production. A co-op can handle water supply, and Most crime would be eliminated for the same reason as nation differences. Government would be around only for minimal administration tasks, like organizing repair work for buildings, roads, water systems, public transport, electricity grids, etc(which could be done by "private co-ops" as well, which really I think they would be almost indistinguishable at this point). The government may still provide police training for a volunteer force of detectives and police men who goes into service when the occasional and rare murder, rape, molestation or so forth occurs. Also, a similar set up can be done with firemen, it would basically be the same as volunteer fire stations now.
If all that can be done, full production capability would be in the hands of individuals, with only some services done in a co-operative fashion(due to their nature). This would eliminate the current scarcity framework of mind, eradicating the hording attitude which stops man from being in harmony with his fellow man. Actually, I think we're closer then most people think to such a society, really just a few technological leaps away.
well, how come you are a communist and have a computer and an interner connection?i thought this wasnt allowed in red countries. in Cuba people are not allowed to have a house let alone interner or tv, in china all sites are banned including google and in Venezuela hunger and poverty is so big it could end up a yo mamma joke. Dont get me wrong capitalism by it self is really bad as well but communism is the worse for many reasons. i ll tell you a short story, when Russia was communist it allowed inports from other countries mainly for food and equipment. the truck drivers that came into Russia would go around in the houses and by offering two or three tins with food they would "sleep" with the moms and daughters. forget communism my friend it sounds good but practically it is the worse dictatorship
do you wish to know why "red countries" don't allow the Internet and other luxuries? that because they are not communist! they have dictators in a truly communistic society there is no leader the people lead with no figurehead. People like you who claim that there are many communistic countries need to brush up on your history, as well as what communism is.
To begin with try to pay more attention when reading.I never said that there are many red countries. Russia(old), Cuba, Venezuela, China arent they supposed to be led by communists?????dont almost all communists support che and wear his t-shirt????why do you dispute that?Is it because communism is actually a dictatorhip? oh yes! dont give me that crap about no figurehead.....you want a movement, you want to support a notion an idea?then you need inspiration and figureheads......if you want to talk about science fiction then fine, i can tell you that i believe that we are ruled by aliens hidden underneath the matrix........ but here we discuss two ideas two methods of ruling if yoy want. communism has failed big time over the years and has been betrayed by its best supporters. Take a look around the communist parties, they all have the same appearance, one guy who leads and is probably frikin rich and the rest of the dummies follow blindelly what he says going against anything and everything for no reason at all.
as i said before capitalism is bad but please do not insult everyones intelligence by trying to state that communism is different from what we see in the real world.
The proletariat consists of most of the population, thus a dictatorship of the proletariat is almost a democracy or democratic republic.
There are multiple streams with in communism, your over simplifying it. Also many left communists consider other so called communists you speak of to just be "left of capitalism" and not actually communists. You speak against vanguardism in your post, so do many communists. Vanguardism isn't a part of classical Marxism, but was an addition to it; some would say a perversion.
Whenever someone says "communist country", you instantly know they don't know communist theory, the term is an oxymoron or contradiction.
what do you think about North Korea? if you see their life, then you can not say that.. lack of house, lack of money,lack of food,serve in the army until they die,.... your life is not yours... you live your life for country without freedom....do you want this kind of life?????? you better not
so many supporters of communism view seem to have the argument that the "rich" or "wealthy" people are evil or bad and the "poor" people are good. I think these people should clarify what is "rich and what is "poor".
The truth is everyones got more then someone else. In your fantasy world be it Communism or whatever who is going to decide who has "to much money"?
Its not so much that the rich are evil, or that the poor are good.
If you took a poor man and made him a millionaire he would either become wealthy or blow it all, he didn't suddenly become evil by acquiring a large amount of cash at once.
Rather, the systems which both the rich and the poor are placed in creates class interests such that Lead in gasoline and toys is possible, that an "natural" rate of unemployment is continually in effect, and so on and so forth. The poor are the majority, and yet they have the smallest voice in how things are done in their community, things which affect all of them. Consider how much of an affect a worker has in determining if the dumping of toxic chemicals occurs, or if he gets paid below a fair price for his skills. With out the government or unions, large companies can basically do what they want in a market with limited information and limited competition(which tends to be the case). Yes people can "vote" with their dollar, but that is only under specific conditions which are rarely meet. Those who can vote the most with their dollars and in most situations, are large companies; like the ones who pay for a politician's expensive TV campaign adds, radio shows, etc. Capitalism allows for these inequities, where a very small number of entities(many of which are not a natural being) has more control over the entire economy then most of the natural members with in it. This is inherently undemocratic, and the differences in interest and power between such classes will only serve one of those classes if we leave it up to the market. Further more, a look at history will show that in general, conflict between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is what results in dramatic social and economic change due to the inherent discrepancies in their self-interests. So long as we have "have-nots" we will experience various social tensions, conflicts and so forth irregardless of the economic system put in place. However, these social tensions are not the sole source of invention or innovation, others exist. A harmonious and progressive society is only possible with a high enough real standard of living for each individual, which means things such as the natural rate of unemployment needs done away with or that unemployment needs to not matter, it means the concentration of ownership in the hands of a few needs to end, etc. In other words, the basic effects of capitalism needs to be surpassed.
Democracy is the best with a fair and equitable capitalism. Communism is said to be about quality, but when practiced it becomes more feudal than anything else. Communism and Fascism are basically the same thing in the end.
What you don't know is that modern democracy is an illusion designed by politicians to make you think you have a say in what happens. If you read the communist manifesto you would know that communism depends on democracy to live. Communism calls for rule by many, fascism calls for rule by one.
Communism is violation of human rights. I could never agree to that. People from communist countries are always trying to come to America, which is allegedly capitalist.
Whilst I respect the fact that communism aims to be centered on a fair community, they miss the fact that communism is not fair. If you work a few hours a week but are paid the same as someone who works almost all of their life, then how is that fair at all?
Some of the richest do work. The Royal Family serve in the military and the CEOs of companies are busy at work being the CEOs of companies - working! Homeless people are the ones that do not work.
Africa is a third-world country and that is completely different.
SOME of the richest work? The royal family dont go to war they train to fly aircraft then ponce abou mt....anyway thats another debate. People dont get paid what they're deserved.CEO pay is through the roof and they do not work harder than any tradesman or nurse nor any body in the third world who gets exploited by capitalism
I used to think that communism would be a good system, but i think it is too restrictive and often ends up badly in a large community. As I stated in a recent debate, it is unfair for a doctor who has studied for over 5 years, worked incredibly hard, and
I also think that right wing economics, i.e. free-market-ism, is the worst way to run a society. You'll end up with one or two huge monopolies controlling everything people do. I think, ironically, that hardcore communism ends up the same as hardcore right-winging, just as I think hardcore libertarianism will eventually become the same as hardcore authoritarianism. One party, or corporation, that controls everything.
That is why I am a slightly libertarian socialist.