prove to me that communism isn't immoral as heck

[General Ludd]

Communism, it's unreal.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ned
It is interesting that the communists primarily defend communism by attacking capitalism and the capitalists defend capitalism by attacking prior examples of communism. But, with few exceptions, even communists do not defend the prior examples of communism, while all capitilists point with pride to the success of capitalist systems.

This is playing rather loose with the facts. One could easily point to the successes of the welfare state which was regarded at the time as dangerously subversive. In Canada, when Tommy Douglas gave residents of his province universal health care, he was labelled an evil and dangerous red.

I can say with confidence that New Zealand was a far better place to live when the state ran most of our lives rather than the market. Lower crime, better standards of education and health care, more opportunity, zero unemployment and almost no poverty.

Terrible, wasn't it?

[SKILORD]

http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=30

EDIT: I read Aga's post and smiled, knowing he had left out som (or perhaps even most) of the facts. The afforelinked website has a bias more in keeping with my own views and shows different statistics than Aga shows.

In 1950, New Zealand ranked as one of the ten wealthiest countries on the planet, with a relatively free economy and strong protections for enterprise and property. Then, under the growing influence of welfare state ideas that were blossoming in Britain, the United States and most of the Western world as well, the country took a hard turn toward statism—the notion that government should be at the center of economic and social life.

The next twenty years produced "Kiwi socialism"—a harvest of big government and economic malaise. Increasingly, New Zealanders found themselves victims of exorbitant tariffs, massive farm subsidies, a huge public debt, chronic budget deficits, rising inflation, a top marginal income tax rate of 66 percent, and a gold-plated welfare system.

The central government in those years became involved in virtually every aspect of economic life. It established its own monopolies in the rail, telecommunications, and electric power businesses. About the only things that grew during the period from 1975 to 1983 were unemployment, taxes, and government spending.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Agathon


This is playing rather loose with the facts. One could easily point to the successes of the welfare state which was regarded at the time as dangerously subversive. In Canada, when Tommy Douglas gave residents of his province universal health care, he was labelled an evil and dangerous red.

I can say with confidence that New Zealand was a far better place to live when the state ran most of our lives rather than the market. Lower crime, better standards of education and health care, more opportunity, zero unemployment and almost no poverty.

Terrible, wasn't it?

dont new zealanders jokingly call their country "the other third world country" or something. their currency has been in the crapper.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by SKILORD
http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=30

EDIT: I read Aga's post and smiled, knowing he had left out som (or perhaps even most) of the facts. The afforelinked website has a bias more in keeping with my own views and shows different statistics than Aga shows.

And you expected something different from Agathon??

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SKILORD
http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=30

EDIT: I read Aga's post and smiled, knowing he had left out som (or perhaps even most) of the facts. The afforelinked website has a bias more in keeping with my own views and shows different statistics than Aga shows.

Except it has nothing to do with the facts. New Zealand's economic problems were mainly the result of being restricted in its chief export market when Britain joined the Common Market in the early seventies. Most of us thought that was a bit stiff, since there are monuments to dead soldiers who died fighting for Britain all over our country.

There was also a silly move by the (Conservative) government of the time to construct megaprojects (refineries, etc.) which we didn't really need. That didn't help matters.

People do say that NZ is becoming a third world country. That is a bit of an exaggeration, but your post obscures the fact that much of the trouble was caused by ill thought out market reforms. For nearly twenty years New Zealanders were told that this would make everything OK again, except it didn't. Crime and unemployment became real problems, where they weren't before.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by SKILORD


Is it not the parent's money? And therefore isn't it the parent's right to bequeath it upon whom they will? There will be fortunate people in any form of government and no amount of bloodletting will alleviate this. Could the parent's not also give it to the poor? They could. The offspring are in no way entitled to this money and unless they were you cannot hold up the 'freedom to give aaway your money after your demise' as a problem with capitalism.

It is.
But here is one thing where our POVs differ:
You seem to value property very much and therefore also the freedom of giving this property away at will, be it the Offspring or be it poorer people.

I on the other hand rather think of wealth as being a reward for your own work.
And this doesn´t apply if your parents are very rich. If they are, and leave all of their wealth for you, you can be a lazy dumbass and maybe never really have worked, and nevertheless grow richer just because the Companies of your Parents (which are administrated by managers and not by you) make more than enough Profit to support your Lifestyle.

So, Laws which apply to many other people, i.e. that, if you show good archivements, you are rewarded by gaining wealth and if you don´t show them, but instead are punished by sliding into poverty don´t aply to you, just because your Parents are rich enough.
(Of course even those laws are just idealized, and to many people in Capitalism (i.e. the poorer people) the first thing (gaining wealth or being promoted for good Performance) often doesn´t apply, whereas the second one, i.e. the danger of sliding into poverty is always present like a Sword of Damocles, looming over their heads)

You state that the parents could also give the money away to the poor. But I disagree, as I think that this very very rarely hapens and the Property of the Parents is most of the times left to their Offsprings (and therefore could promote them in becoming decadent people who do no realy work and rather soend most of the time in their lifes partying).

Setting a (even if generous) limit to the money you can leave to your children would do a lot to prevent this (because even if they had a god start (better Education and the money they nhrit from their parents and maybe their contacts) due to wealthy parents, they would have to work to support their lifes, because they wouldn´t get any of their parents Companies (which make Profit) and the amount of money they inherit would also not be enough, to support the Lifestyle they got used to for their whole lifes.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


It is.
But here is one thing where our POVs differ:
You seem to value property very much and therefore also the freedom of giving this property away at will, be it the Offspring or be it poorer people.

I on the other hand rather think of wealth as being a reward for your own work.
And this doesn´t apply if your parents are very rich. If they are, and leave all of their wealth for you, you can be a lazy dumbass and maybe never really have worked, and nevertheless grow richer just because the Companies of your Parents (which are administrated by managers and not by you) make more than enough Profit to support your Lifestyle.

So, Laws which apply to many other people, i.e. that, if you show good archivements, you are rewarded by gaining wealth and if you don´t show them, but instead are punished by sliding into poverty don´t aply to you, just because your Parents are rich enough.
(Of course even those laws are just idealized, and to many people in Capitalism (i.e. the poorer people) the first thing (gaining wealth or being promoted for good Performance) often doesn´t apply, whereas the second one, i.e. the danger of sliding into poverty is always present like a Sword of Damocles, looming over their heads)

You state that the parents could also give the money away to the poor. But I disagree, as I think that this very very rarely hapens and the Property of the Parents is most of the times left to their Offsprings (and therefore could promote them in becoming decadent people who do no realy work and rather soend most of the time in their lifes partying).

u should support the inheritance tax then.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SKILORD
I can't see what you mean? How could a system dedicated to profit, cutting corners and so forth, be seen as wasteful?

Wasteful in terms of resources. How many cars are produced each year and how many are actually needed? Same with home appliances and all sorts of other things. Perhaps each unit takes less to produce, but overall, the excess production adds up to a huge waste of resources.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Wasteful in terms of resources. How many cars are produced each year and how many are actually needed? Same with home appliances and all sorts of other things. Perhaps each unit takes less to produce, but overall, the excess production adds up to a huge waste of resources.

consumerism. and obviously we don't "need" any cars. we could all walk around in jungles picking berries. what good is it to demand a person can only buy what they need(communism reference)? I don't think ppl would appreciate that.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by yavoon


u should support the inheritance tax then.

Inheritance Tax is a way to limit the property the children, yes. But it wouldn´t prevent the children from very rich parents to stll get enough money/property, that they would never evr have to work (at least, as long the Tax isn´t very very high for high amounts of money ).

But I rather think of a rigid Limit.
I.e. no mater how wealthy you are, the maximal amount each of your children gets is limited to a certain amount of money be it 1 Milion Dollar per Children, be it 2 Million.
And further no Companies may be left for your Children, only maybe one or two houses, where they can live.
On the other hand (if the property their parents have is much more than the limit they are allowed to inherit to their children) the children wouldn´t have to pay inheritance Taxes for the money they get (whereas poorer people still would have to pay Inheritance Taxes).

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


Inheritance Tax is a way to limit the property the children, yes. But it wouldn´t prevent the children from very rich parents to stll get enough money/property, that they would never evr have to work (at least, as long the Tax isn´t very very high for high amounts of money ).

But I rather think of a rigid Limit.
I.e. no mater how wealthy you are, the maximal amount each of your children gets is limited to a certain amount of money be it 1 Milion Dollar per Children, be it 2 Million.
And further no Companies may be left for your Children, only maybe one or two houses, where they can live.
On the other hand (if the property their parents have is much more than the limit they are allowed to inherit to their children) the children wouldn´t have to pay inheritance Taxes for the money they get (whereas poorer people still would have to pay Inheritance Taxes).

u'd be shocked how easy it is to be parted from ur money. there are two main problems in life. having money and not having money.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by yavoon

dont new zealanders jokingly call their country "the other third world country" or something. their currency has been in the crapper.

Since NZ depends heavily upon agricultural exports and tourism that is no bad thing. Of course it means that consumer electronics can be a bit pricey, but the necessities of life are pretty cheap.

I used to pay about 300 US$ a month to rent a 3 bedroom house on a 1/4 acre block of land.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Agathon


Since NZ depends heavily upon agricultural exports and tourism that is no bad thing. Of course it means that consumer electronics can be a bit pricey, but the necessities of life are pretty cheap.

I used to pay about 300 US$ a month to rent a 3 bedroom house on a 1/4 acre block of land.

new zealand is a sweet place. I'd love to live there someday. no jobs though.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


Inheritance Tax is a way to limit the property the children, yes. But it wouldn´t prevent the children from very rich parents to stll get enough money/property, that they would never evr have to work (at least, as long the Tax isn´t very very high for high amounts of money ).

But I rather think of a rigid Limit.
I.e. no mater how wealthy you are, the maximal amount each of your children gets is limited to a certain amount of money be it 1 Milion Dollar per Children, be it 2 Million.
And further no Companies may be left for your Children, only maybe one or two houses, where they can live.
On the other hand (if the property their parents have is much more than the limit they are allowed to inherit to their children) the children wouldn´t have to pay inheritance Taxes for the money they get (whereas poorer people still would have to pay Inheritance Taxes).

How dare the people of America wish to pass on their lifelong work to their children!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by yavoon

new zealand is a sweet place. I'd love to live there someday. no jobs though.

Partly, although not wholly (I'm not a complete dogmatist) due to the unthinking nature of the market reforms.

I mean, those idiots just did everything from ideology, there was no real thought given to pragmatics.

Anyway, if the dollar stays low, why not retire there?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Verto


How dare the people of America wish to pass on their lifelong work to their children!

They can do it, but not too much.
Little children has to learn that he needs to work in his life. Knowing that you are one day without money to support your Lifestyle, if you don´t work might be a big incentive

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by yavoon
consumerism. and obviously we don't "need" any cars. we could all walk around in jungles picking berries. what good is it to demand a person can only buy what they need(communism reference)? I don't think ppl would appreciate that.

I was not talking about consumerism, and go lightly on them phallacies, okay?

What I was saying is, whenever there is a market with more than one vendor supplying it, the total amount of goods produced will inevitably exceed the need. Unless, of course, when you have a cartel.

[Curiosity]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by SKILORD
Lasseiz Faire Capitalism is the only system I know of where there are no entrenched figures with sufficient authority to stagnate progress [quote]

Untrue, in that once an individual or corporaton has acquired sufficient capital they can easiy maipulate the market to their ends. Microsoft, for example. That's why there is no such thing as laissez-faire capitalism in develped countries. We make countless laws to reign in the power of corporations.

you agree with me, though you do not realise it yet.

You'll notice I'm arguing both sides of the issue in this thread.

What I mostly disagree with is the idea that one ideology has all the answers. There are plainly advantages and disadvantages to both sides, and blindly arguing for one or the other disguises the complexity of the situation.

So far I don't believe that anyone has designed an optimal system.

[SlowwHand]

I knew this, then forgot.


With the breakup of the USSR, what is the "main" Communist country?
China.

In China, what percentage are Communists?
5%.




Communism is dead.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SKILORD
So your support of Communism is based upon your support of the ideal that, if I understand correctly, Your values are the highest and they should be enforced on others through violent revolution.

Why not? The values which you hold dear were imposed by force and maintained by force. So get of your moral high horse. But this is a strawman from my argument, which is that capitalism is inefficient.

By alternate point of view you are, of course, referring to the wanton slaughter of the burgoise.

Where have I ever called for anyone to be slaughtered, let alone watonly? While some communists do, not the ones you'll have to deal, as long as you stay out of the Third World. Besides, much of the knowledge we need for running society is locked up in the brains of the bourgeoisie. Killing them would be counter-productive (and has proven to be so everywhere it has occured).

Of course, we'd be stupid if we let the boureoisie have complete freedom, since history shows us that when the commnuists have been lenient, the former rulers have done everything in their power to overthrow the revolution, leading to very bloody civil wars and the degeneration of the revolution (which led to the rise of Stalin).

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

Originally posted by SKILORD So your support of Communism is based upon your support of the ideal that, if I understand correctly, Your values are the highest and they should be enforced on others through violent revolution.

Why not? The values which you hold dear were imposed by force and maintained by force. So get of your moral high horse. But this is a strawman from my argument, which is that capitalism is inefficient.

capitalism is an SUV w/ a jet engine strapped on top. communism is a geo metro w/ handles for easier pushing.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I was not talking about consumerism, and go lightly on them phallacies, okay?

What I was saying is, whenever there is a market with more than one vendor supplying it, the total amount of goods produced will inevitably exceed the need. Unless, of course, when you have a cartel.

not by any substantial margin. I assume u mean "fighting for market share" leads to one side winning somewhat and the others loosing somewhat. but overall no1 can continue to overproduce, because that loses money. corporations don't like losing money.

night try at slighting me w/ the first sentence=D

[SKILORD]

But here is one thing where our POVs differ:
You seem to value property very much and therefore also the freedom of giving this property away at will, be it the Offspring or be it poorer people.

I on the other hand rather think of wealth as being a reward for your own work.

Rather our points of view differ only as far as you think they differ: I agree, wealth is a reward for a job well done. And if you want your reward to be the knowledge that your descendants are cared for then that shall be your reward, and it is noone's right to say that they cannot do as they will with the money which even you admit they earned.

You state that the parents could also give the money away to the poor. But I disagree, as I think that this very very rarely hapens and the Property of the Parents is most of the times left to their Offsprings (and therefore could promote them in becoming decadent people who do no realy work and rather soend most of the time in their lifes partying.

You say not that it is impossible for the parents to give the money to someone other than their offspring, but rather that it is uncommon. What's more, the problems of the offspring are not ours to discuss. I will not judge their souls.

That's why there is no such thing as laissez-faire capitalism in develped countries.

America until the Civil War was lassaiz faire. Afterwards monopolies began to spread as the government started to interfere with the economy. (Intercontinental RailRoad)

Why not? The values which you hold dear were imposed by force and maintained by force. So get of your moral high horse. But this is a strawman from my argument, which is that capitalism is inefficient.

My values aren't maintained by force. I'm sure that this mysterious 'force' of yours wouldn't want an Anarchist running about. I found my own values and I maintain them. I don't see anyone forcing the ineffeciencies you speak so haughtily of down our throat.

Of course, we'd be stupid if we let the boureoisie have complete freedom, since history shows us that when the commnuists have been lenient, the former rulers have done everything in their power to overthrow the revolution, leading to very bloody civil wars and the degeneration of the revolution (which led to the rise of Stalin).

Stalin was put in power due to Civil War?

No, Stalin was the handpicked sucessor of Lenin. Lenin left Stalin specific instructions to purge (although admittedly Lenin probably never intended as much slaughter) the party.

People go out of business because they make moer than they can sell. American farmers have to paid not to produce because otherwise their great productiveness would swamp the market and none of them could make a living.

And Communist nations starve when the beurocrats can't get the food in the right place.

[Juggernaut]

While I'm not a communist, I do believe there are a few irrebuttable arguments in it's favor;

1. Utilitarian view. I believe a single consciousness can only generate a limited amount of happiness. As wealth reaches infinity, increased happiness reaches zero. Thus, at some extreme point, more money to an extremely wealthy person does not longer increase happiness and could successfully be distributed to the poorest people who experiences an inverted wealth/happiness curve. Result: More total generated happiness.

2. Everything is relative. Most people who have enough food to eat and a bed to sleep in still complain on how poor they are. Why? Because there's always someone who's richer. People compare. In relation to the Bill Gates you're a street bum. In relation to the stone-age chieftain you're Bill Gates. So, even if communism would lower the average "income" compared to today (I've actually never seen any mathematical-economical support for this), there would be no one richer than you and wealth that you don't know of doesn't make you feel bad. Else, all cavemen would have commited suicide. Oh. There's one little problem though. The middle and upper class who allegedly were better off then would still compare with the old days of capitalism. You'd have to give them a memory loss a lá MIB.

[SKILORD]

1. Tyrrany by Mob is the same as tyrrany by an individual, only more systematic and efficient.

2. Covetousness is an inheritly unfulfilling basis for a society. I can see now what seperates Capitalists from Communists. We would rather build ourselves financial Empires (As you note: the endless pursuit of money for moneys sake is unfulfilling. Congrats, we should all learn this lesson) than dismantling someone elses. You refuse, however, to allow us individual choices. Let those who wish for money pursue it and those who feel that happiness can be attained somhow else pursue their paths, We should not declare that money is all that matters and should therfore be equally divided.

[Kidicious]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Urban Ranger
the excess production adds up to a huge waste of resources.

Don't forget about the shortages UR. Right now the homeless shelter for families is full where I live. NOw that's what I call an inefficiency. Who the hell cares how many SUVs we produce when homeless families have no place to go?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

COmmunism is not immoral it's people who are immoral, communism merely does not give the people a good protection from immorality that is naturally present in the society.

Capitalism/democracy does that much better (still lame as it is but the best so far) as it assumes that people are immoral ie there are much better safeguards built in the system to protect the weak from the immorality of the powerful.

If people were moral communism would be heaven.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SKILORD
America until the Civil War was lassaiz faire.

Tariffs were lassaiz-faire? The Bank of the U.S. was lassaiz-faire? The Whiskey Tax was lassaiz-faire? Government theft of Indian land was lassaiz-faire? Government theft of Meixcan land was lassaiz-faire? Wow? I never new lassaiz-faire meant so much government intervention.

My values aren't maintained by force.

Oh yes they are. Try and steal something and see how mysterious the force of the police is. If workers try and strike and march have a picket outside their plant, the police will try and break them up, the courts will impose fines, the President can declare a 'cooling-off' period and force people back to work.

I don't see anyone forcing the ineffeciencies you speak so haughtily of down our throat.

Just because you are willingly blind doesn't mean it isn't there.

Stalin was put in power due to Civil War?

The Civil War created a situtation in which Stalin was able to seize power, yes.

No, Stalin was the handpicked sucessor of Lenin.

Not hand-picked by Lenin. Lenin tried to have Stalin removed from authority. He just couldn't get any cooperation while he was incapacitated by his stroke. You might try and read Lenin's 'testament.' Tortsky was Lenin's hand-picked successor.

Lenin left Stalin specific instructions to purge (although admittedly Lenin probably never intended as much slaughter) the party.

BS! In fact, as part of his 'testament' Lenin argued that more workers should be admitted to the party,many more workers, in order to swamp the bureaucratic tendency which chose Stalin as its leader.

Communist nations starve when the beurocrats can't get the food in the right place.

Capitalist nations starve a lot more often the Communist nations do.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[
Capitalist nations starve a lot more often the Communist nations do.

not really... in proportion if you take all the communist states together and all the capitalist ones including africa/ south america etc...

on average I am 100% certain that all the hunger... think about it... Ukraine, Russia, China, etc... because of management mistakes would never have happened in a similarly developed capitalist society...


People in capitalism are hungry because of natural catastophes like droughts/floods or wars etc, and not some beurocratic/sadistic mistakes like killing all sparrows that the great Mao thought of... resulting in 30+ million of dead from hunger and similar. There is too much power and no accountability in the hands of too few men in a "common/traditional" communistic society. For it to function well...