PDA

View Full Version : Communism


Shikamaru Nara
04-03-2011, 09:03 AM
Thoughts?

jesse uzumaki
04-03-2011, 09:05 AM
communism was orginally created for good. it was created to limit the rich who controled the poor and if you have a amazing good leader it will work however there are terrible leaders now who use communism as a terrible way to control people.

Shikamaru Nara
04-03-2011, 09:06 AM
No idea how it's good.

jesse uzumaki
04-03-2011, 09:13 AM
No idea how it's good.
it's good if you have a good leader that cares about there people it limits humans based on income that way there no one saying I am better than you and it creates values in people and destroys social boundaries which are redecilous. there is no high class or low class in cumminism. everybody is equal in based in income. which is good we don't have people who think there better than others based on there income we don't have people who will be driven by greed just to have more money. there be very low crime rate because everybody is paid the same.

however if you have a terrible leader he will easily control everybody and limit them even farther. that making difficult for anyone in that country to ask for help on other countries or help stop the terrible leader.

Gin
04-03-2011, 12:16 PM
No idea how it's good.
Uh, it's equality. I don't see how there's a flaw if it's executed properly.

Kunoichi
04-03-2011, 12:19 PM
Uh, it's equality. I don't see how there's a flaw if it's executed properly.
It's flawed because of human nature. The only way communism works is on a small scale. You can't run a country successfully through communism, you might be able to run a board meeting via communism but get more then a dozen or so people and you'll have problems at some point.

kunoichifan102
04-03-2011, 12:32 PM
I don't even know what it is.

Shikamaru Nara
04-03-2011, 12:33 PM
Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production.

kunoichifan102
04-03-2011, 12:37 PM
That sounds kinda good.

Shikamaru Nara
04-03-2011, 12:40 PM
How? It's conforming to other people's likes and dislikes/preferences.

What's the good of living in a society that has no argument or disputes? Then things aren't done right or may not be.

It brings us back to the roots of tyranny back in the day.

Some were good.

Others were bad.

Kunoichi
04-03-2011, 01:08 PM
How? It's conforming to other people's likes and dislikes/preferences.

What's the good of living in a society that has no argument or disputes? Then things aren't done right or may not be.

It brings us back to the roots of tyranny back in the day.

Some were good.

Others were bad.
That's less communism and more utopia, utopias can work but again on a very very very very very small scale. When it comes to running a country there are zero forums of government that come without a down side.

<Zero>
04-03-2011, 01:40 PM
the core of it is pretty good

but, people will always want more power/money than their neighbor

like anything, once you add the human factor it becomes flawed

GenFlower12
04-03-2011, 01:45 PM
It's nice to think about but human nature makes us want to be better than everyone else and not stop while we're ahead.Kunochi is right about it working better in small scale but everyone's opions and wants keeps it from being a way to run a country.

Kreegah!!!
04-04-2011, 11:28 AM
Down with the Bourgeoisie!

Since people NEED to be governed, including the governors, no form of government is going to be without exploit.

As for Communism, I cannot think of one good leader subscribing to that viewpoint.

But I'm not bothering to try too hard, either.

Space Cowboy Sasori
04-04-2011, 12:09 PM
http://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/communism.jpg

Man, i love that shirt.

Parak111
04-04-2011, 12:14 PM
No one can really tell you what communism is. Wikipedia is written by people. But if those people are democrats, and they wrote it, they're bound to say the worst, and maybe come up with lies about a certain way of leading a country only to keep people away from desiring to experience it.

Unless you, your relatives, or your ancestors lived in a country whose leadership was communistic, you can NEVER know what communism really is.

Words are not always to be trusted, so if someone tells you it's bad, you should make your OWN research and see if it truly is bad.

If that person has the brains to do that, of course.

Shikamaru Nara
04-04-2011, 03:11 PM
I feel some heat. http://s236.photobucket.com/albums/ff286/nfforums/NF%20smilies/2z7exox.png

Kunoichi
04-04-2011, 03:29 PM
No one can really tell you what communism is. Wikipedia is written by people. But if those people are democrats, and they wrote it, they're bound to say the worst, and maybe come up with lies about a certain way of leading a country only to keep people away from desiring to experience it.

Unless you, your relatives, or your ancestors lived in a country whose leadership was communistic, you can NEVER know what communism really is.

Words are not always to be trusted, so if someone tells you it's bad, you should make your OWN research and see if it truly is bad.

If that person has the brains to do that, of course.
Communism is a term. Just like democracy is a term, and monarchy, and oligarchy. They're terms that define a structure of government. It doesn't matter how you personally feel about them, it's not going to change the definition of what communism is.

Parak111
04-04-2011, 06:04 PM
Communism is a term. Just like democracy is a term, and monarchy, and oligarchy. They're terms that define a structure of government. It doesn't matter how you personally feel about them, it's not going to change the definition of what communism is.


All I was saying was that unless you experience communism, or heck, any other feeling/thing to be experienced, you can't be sure of anything.

It's like talking about pain, as a feeling, that's it's quite unpleasant. But if you haven't felt it, you can't be sure if it's like that until you do.

I haven't lived in a country whose leadership was communistic, but I doubt any of you have either, that's why I can't rush to say "COMMUNISM IS BADDDDD". If you do that, basically, you're just stating someone else's opinion who sent that message, and not your own.

But, yeah. Communism is a term, like democracy. That's for sure.:lol:

mrsticky005
04-04-2011, 09:25 PM
I think it's great how some people think that Capitalism fails because people are greedy and corrupt but then they offer Communism as the solution when ironically Communism fares MUCH worse with greedy and corrupt people. Just look at the Soviet Union. For those who try to argue that the Soviet Union is not truly Communist I retort that the United States is not truly Capitalist. That is to say we do not live in a Lazy Fair just kidding Laissez Faire Free Market System. If we did there be no regulation which there is. So you couldn't really judge Capitalism to be bad if you never actually experienced Capitalism. However since many people would might say
something like "well this country is capitalist enough and it needs to be more communist" I would say "Well the Soviet Union was communist enough and we most certainly do NOT need to go in that direction." Though I also think the whole argument that Capitalism does not work because people are greedy and corrupt
itself is incorrect. I think Capitalism works just fine even with greedy and corrupt
people and actually capitalism caters to them and they help run capitalism.
I think the real reason "Capitalism" fails is because we are actually straying too far AWAY from true capitalism in the first place. Though whether or not we should
strive for actual laissez faire free market capitalism is another debate.

Jutsu Junkie
04-05-2011, 08:21 PM
Capitalism hasn't failed, government regulation (of itself and finance) has failed. The reason we are in the mess we are in is because we allowed hard-learned lessons from the Great Depression to be slaughtered at the alter of Ayn Rand and her obsessing do-boys (like Allen Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who later said he was wrong -- thanks, Allen. What a guy. /sarcasm).

Extremes lead to extremely negative outcomes almost without fail in history. As a case in point, Communist regimes come to assume (perhaps from the start) that not only can a person not own anything, but that they don't even own themselves, such that requiring any level of sacrifice for whatever goal the ruling class concocts becomes appropriate. This is why Mao Zedong off-handedly remarked that completing his vision would require the death of some 50 million of his fellow Chinese. He said so without irony, heartache, or reservation, because Communism doesn't see individuals as important. You are the property of the state, and what the state wants is really just what the Leader or his Committee wants. We see here the second problem with Communism: blinding hypocrisy; while claiming the classless society as their goal, a Communist (especially a Marxist) will happily impose his will with violence and cruelty at the drop of a hat. In doing so, he creates a ruling class, and betrays his ideal. Such ideologies have led to the greatest massacres and deprivations known in human history. That is why Communism is horrible.

To recap: Communism is a system of slavery based upon hypocritical ideals.

Their entire scheme is betrayed in one line from the Communist Manifesto: "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities." If they think you are good at digging ditches, guess what? You get to die in one with a bowl of porridge.

mrsticky005
04-05-2011, 09:14 PM
Capitalism hasn't failed, government regulation (of itself and finance) has failed. The reason we are in the mess we are in is because we allowed hard-learned lessons from the Great Depression to be slaughtered at the alter of Ayn Rand and her obsessing do-boys (like Allen Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who later said he was wrong -- thanks, Allen. What a guy. /sarcasm).

Extremes lead to extremely negative outcomes almost without fail in history. As a case in point, Communist regimes come to assume (perhaps from the start) that not only can a person not own anything, but that they don't even own themselves, such that requiring any level of sacrifice for whatever goal the ruling class concocts becomes appropriate. This is why Mao Zedong off-handedly remarked that completing his vision would require the death of some 50 million of his fellow Chinese. He said so without irony, heartache, or reservation, because Communism doesn't see individuals as important. You are the property of the state, and what the state wants is really just what the Leader or his Committee wants. We see here the second problem with Communism: blinding hypocrisy; while claiming the classless society as their goal, a Communist (especially a Marxist) will happily impose his will with violence and cruelty at the drop of a hat. In doing so, he creates a ruling class, and betrays his ideal. Such ideologies have led to the greatest massacres and deprivations known in human history. That is why Communism is horrible.

To recap: Communism is a system of slavery based upon hypocritical ideals.

Their entire scheme is betrayed in one line from the Communist Manifesto: "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities." If they think you are good at digging ditches, guess what? You get to die in one with a bowl of porridge.

Well spoken er typed. :cool:

Bacon
04-05-2011, 09:42 PM
Thoughts?
Hard to explain,but it's a failed institution like any form of government. The only reason capitalism is still around, is because we like it.

It has failed many a time.

mrsticky005
04-05-2011, 10:14 PM
Hard to explain,but it's a failed institution like any form of government. The only reason capitalism is still around, is because we like it.

It has failed many a time.

Is it just me or is Communism not very popular in this thread?

I was actually expecting a lot more defense of it.

Oh well.

YAY FOR CAPITALI$M!!!


The most informative poster you'll ever see on Communism. ;)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_tRNNIyUdLKI/SpBvOkGT9PI/AAAAAAAACg8/8Qt487ca3MM/s400/How_Communism_Works2.jpg

Bacon
04-05-2011, 10:31 PM
I was refering to capitalism and the 2008 bailouts,Great depression. To be honest, the only reason I don't post more is because my knowledge is limited to a few lectures about Marx,but those are fuzzy. :lol:
I did find Jutsu Junkie's post interesting when he blamed government regulation, probably a laissez faire type of guy.
;)

naruto_jock
04-05-2011, 10:44 PM
The idea of communism would only work if the government had regulation over certain things, like the economy and medical expenses, but to have the government under control of how much toilet paper you can buy is a bunch of crap. Capitalism just causes an all out everyone for themselves which can screw over A LOT of the lower class and ONLY A FEW of the higher ups.
Capitalism is the perfect economic situation for republicans cuz they are the ones who own the businesses, invest in corporations, and have the money able to spend it on crap in any economic situation. And since we allow them to get into power we of course are shooting ourselves in the foot cuz you're not a true republican if you don't own your own business or make enough money to retire at 30-35 but want more money. Simple as that.

The Virgin
04-05-2011, 10:52 PM
i don't like it.

mrsticky005
04-05-2011, 11:09 PM
I was refering to capitalism and the 2008 bailouts,Great depression. To be honest, the only reason I don't post more is because my knowledge is limited to a few lectures about Marx,but those are fuzzy. :lol:
I did find Jutsu Junkie's post interesting when he blamed government regulation, probably a laissez faire type of guy.
;)


Yay for Laissez Faire! :cool: Yay!

Bacon
04-06-2011, 12:08 AM
Horray for the invisible hand!! Woot! Surely the business owners of the United states will be honorable by giving the average worker a decent wage without the need for government intervention.

mrsticky005
04-06-2011, 02:31 AM
Horray for the invisible hand!! Woot! Surely the business owners of the United states will be honorable by giving the average worker a decent wage without the need for government intervention.

Far from needing government intervention I think government intervention is the problem itself.

Wooster
04-06-2011, 04:19 AM
When government perverts incentives and causes the misallocations of resources, yes it is.

Given that communism is all about allocating all resources (including human labor), it fails miserably. The unseen hand is much wiser than all the eggheads you can cram into the Kremlin.

Jutsu Junkie
04-06-2011, 02:46 PM
That's less communism and more utopia, utopias can work but again on a very very very very very small scale. When it comes to running a country there are zero forums of government that come without a down side.

That sounds kinda good.

the core of it is pretty good

but, people will always want more power/money than their neighbor

like anything, once you add the human factor it becomes flawed

Well spoken er typed. :cool:

Thanks.

I was refering to capitalism and the 2008 bailouts,Great depression. To be honest, the only reason I don't post more is because my knowledge is limited to a few lectures about Marx,but those are fuzzy. :lol:
I did find Jutsu Junkie's post interesting when he blamed government regulation, probably a laissez faire type of guy.
;)

Yay for Laissez Faire! :cool: Yay!

Okay, my passion probably made me slightly unclear. I'm not against a certain level of government regulation. What I'm against is extremes.

Laissez faire capitalism is just as diabolical as communism. The truth is that our striving for as little regulation as possible is one of the things that bought us the Great Depression, and striking the Glass

Jutsu Junkie
04-06-2011, 02:47 PM
That's less communism and more utopia, utopias can work but again on a very very very very very small scale. When it comes to running a country there are zero forums of government that come without a down side.

That sounds kinda good.

the core of it is pretty good

but, people will always want more power/money than their neighbor

like anything, once you add the human factor it becomes flawed

Well spoken er typed. :cool:

Thanks.

I was refering to capitalism and the 2008 bailouts,Great depression. To be honest, the only reason I don't post more is because my knowledge is limited to a few lectures about Marx,but those are fuzzy. :lol:
I did find Jutsu Junkie's post interesting when he blamed government regulation, probably a laissez faire type of guy.
;)

Yay for Laissez Faire! :cool: Yay!

Okay, my passion probably made me slightly unclear. I'm not against a certain level of government regulation. What I'm against is extremes.

Laissez faire capitalism is just as diabolical as communism. The truth is that our striving for as little regulation as possible is one of the things that bought us the Great Depression, and striking the Glass-Steagall Act, which was designed to prevent that horror from happening again, helped bring us the Great Recession. Merely letting the banks fail would not have helped pull us out of the recession on its lonesome. It just would have made a bunch of rich people much less rich and more risk-averse, and much less likely (or able) to invest in businesses. Hiring would have continued to tank at an even faster rate. Remember, the bailout was a Republican idea. My point isn't that Democrats are blameless angels, just that the response was essentially non-partisan. That was for a reason: when you see a semi headed your way, you move.

mrsticky005
04-06-2011, 04:14 PM
Thanks.





Okay, my passion probably made me slightly unclear. I'm not against a certain level of government regulation. What I'm against is extremes.

Laissez faire capitalism is just as diabolical as communism. The truth is that our striving for as little regulation as possible is one of the things that bought us the Great Depression, and striking the Glass-Steagall Act, which was designed to prevent that horror from happening again, helped bring us the Great Recession. Merely letting the banks fail would not have helped pull us out of the recession on its lonesome. It just would have made a bunch of rich people much less rich and more risk-averse, and much less likely (or able) to invest in businesses. Hiring would have continued to tank at an even faster rate. Remember, the bailout was a Republican idea. My point isn't that Democrats are blameless angels, just that the response was essentially non-partisan. That was for a reason: when you see a semi headed your way, you move.

Laissez Faire isn't "as little regulation as possible" it is "no regulation".
I don't think true laissez faire capitalism has ever actually existed.
The Great Depression wasn't caused by Laissez Faire capitalism
because there never was Laissez Faire capitalism to have failed.

Jutsu Junkie
04-06-2011, 04:55 PM
The same is true of Communism, in that it never existed in its true form. They are both Utopian fantasies. The closer you get to either extreme, the greater the chances of unbalancing society. Even imperfect implementation of either ideology leads to chaos and misery. I will cite the condition of society around the time of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle as reason enough to avoid unfettered market forces (even if not total in character). Grinding monopolies and unregulated poor working conditions are no way to promote human flourishing.

Bacon
04-06-2011, 05:06 PM
Thanks.





Okay, my passion probably made me slightly unclear. I'm not against a certain level of government regulation. What I'm against is extremes.

Laissez faire capitalism is just as diabolical as communism. The truth is that our striving for as little regulation as possible is one of the things that bought us the Great Depression, and striking the Glass

Blaming the plight of all people under the premise of extremes is subjective. What may seem extreme to you and I, can be perfectly fine to another. There is no right or wrong way to govern people,but it's safe to say that a government is doing something right if its people do not topple it over during times of collapse.

Far from needing government intervention I think government intervention is the problem itself.

Anything made by imperfect humans is prone to failure sticky,especially if it is a government that is designed to govern millions of people in an ever changing environment. Plus I would like to add that we can all interject,but it's all fruitless since the problems of problems induced by government or an absence can come to pass.

Take my example of labor, the government can impose horrid working conditions like Joesph Stalin,but without government intervention; factories preyed on people and tossed them like aside when they were no longer useful.

That's why I gave the one liner initially. ;)

Jutsu Junkie
04-06-2011, 05:20 PM
Take my example of labor, the government can impose horrid working conditions like Joesph Stalin,but without government intervention; factories preyed on people and tossed them like aside when they were no longer useful.)

That supports my point!

Historically, the government attempting to do nothing or the government attempting to do everything are both extremes. There is a reason that striving for either extreme has marked history with chaos and destruction. Extreme ideologies aren't the only problem with government, but they contribute a great deal to human suffering.

As far as what constitutes extremism being subjective, that can be put to rest since we are talking about Utopian ideals within the context of geopolitical history. An unreachable ideal is by definition extreme, even if everyone nominally approves of it. For a good example, take world peace: the only way to achieve this Utopian state is through the destruction of most of our other positive values. If you find an ideology or political goal contradicting itself, it should be avoided. You can quibble about whether anything we discuss can be objectively described as extreme, but the nature of the argument makes the definition clear for our purposes here.

The Forgotten One
04-06-2011, 05:34 PM
No one can really tell you what communism is. Wikipedia is written by people. But if those people are Republicans, and they wrote it, they're bound to say the worst, and maybe come up with lies about a certain way of leading a country only to keep people away from desiring to experience it.

Unless you, your relatives, or your ancestors lived in a country whose leadership was communistic, you can NEVER know what communism really is.

Words are not always to be trusted, so if someone tells you it's bad, you should make your OWN research and see if it truly is bad.

If that person has the brains to do that, of course.

Fix'd. The Republicans always say the worst about Communism. The Democrats are the ones who try to make it sound like having the government control everything is all sugar and rainbows.

mrsticky005
04-06-2011, 05:35 PM
The same is true of Communism, in that it never existed in its true form. They are both Utopian fantasies. The closer you get to either extreme, the greater the chances of unbalancing society. Even imperfect implementation of either ideology leads to chaos and misery. I will cite the condition of society around the time of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle as reason enough to avoid unfettered market forces (even if not total in character). Grinding monopolies and unregulated poor working conditions are no way to promote human flourishing.

Disagree. Laissez Faire is far from Utopian Fantasy. Utopian Fantasies suggest a perfect world. A perfect world is one where everyone succeeds and nobody fails. Laissez Faire is far from this. In Laissez Faire not everyone succeeds and people fail. Actually it pretty much relies on people failing. Hence competition. If one seller does well the other does that much worse. But that doesn't mean things have to stay that way. Things can
reverse. The only thing keeping Laissez Faire from working is government.
Government will never allow Laissez Faire to work because it takes away
from their power. Government will always try to convince us that we
need regulation and intervention from them even though that's what really is hurting us. Communism on the other hand is Utopian fantasy or actually
it requires Utopian fantasy to work. Communism requires that people not
be corrupt and greedy for it to work but this is utopian fantasy.
De Facto Monopolies are not a bad thing. Inventors are de facto monopolies because they have no competition. They can't have
competition because they just invented their invention. There's
nothing wrong with there being a de facto monopoly that by
definition has no competition. De facto monopolies can never last
indefinitely because sooner or later in a laissez faire economy
competition will arise. Somebody else will create the same product
or service (if someone can invent it. Someone can copy it.) and
sell it for cheaper or sell it for more quality. Buyers will then decide
which one they want. Buyers can also boycott and force prices
to go down that way. I think it is a myth that government intervention
is what stopped poor working conditions just as I think it is a myth
that the Civil War stopped slavery. What really stopped poor working
conditions are advancements in technology. The more advance
technology becomes the less need there is for poor working conditions.
Even if we took down child labor laws, the idea that we would have
a child labor crisis is nonsense. First of all, it probably be classified
under child abuse (Laissez Faire is not pardoned from crime) and
second there really is no need for child labor anymore.

Bacon
04-06-2011, 06:21 PM
Sticky, Supply and demand and Laissex faire would go hand in hand, but both concepts are only theories. The only way for an economy to truly thrive in a supply and demand environment is to close all trade and depend on the virtue of people to not prey on others. For you see, the improvement in working conditions has not been the advancement of technology, but rather it is the product of the collective determination of the people and slight government regulation that facilitated that change.

Lastly, according to the basics of economics, people act rationally to get ahead in life. So would it be rationale for an employer to pay their workers a liveable wage, or would it make sense to cut that cost and speed up production.

Laissez faire is not a fantasy,but the polar opposite of communism.

Wooster
04-06-2011, 07:00 PM
The only permanent monopolies are caused by government regulations and subsidies. See Ma Bell and Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac.

Capitalism works because it takes into account human nature and despite personal greed benefits everyone. Just like airplanes take into account the laws of nature and fly despite gravity.

Communism requires a person to think of the whole of mankind and ignore personal wants. Whether that is evil or not is besides the point. It just fails because it needs an elite to run it. No matter how smart they are, they is just too much data to dictate how an economy should be run. Much better to let the individual decide what they want and how much they are willing to pay for it. Scarcity is immutable property that is not the price of an resource. Price is actual only information of such scarcity and helps moves resources to where they are must needed.
However, through increases in productivity and innovation fewer resources, whether human labor or chunk of metal, can be used to sastify demands. That essentially is what improves the quality of life of the middle class and the poor. How important is running water if you have slaves or servants that can carry water to you?
No running water is a boon to the less fortunate. These type of innovation do not happen in communism because all the effort is used to figure out how much cotton should be grown and how much it should cost. Never mind colors that is goes out the window only grays and browns for you.
In any case, communism fail because communism fails. It has been tried, it just doesn't work. Ask the Chinese whether capitalism or communism is better.

Jutsu Junkie
04-06-2011, 11:12 PM
Disagree. Laissez Faire is far from Utopian Fantasy. Utopian Fantasies suggest a perfect world. A perfect world is one where everyone succeeds and nobody fails. Laissez Faire is far from this. In Laissez Faire not everyone succeeds and people fail. Actually it pretty much relies on people failing. Hence competition. If one seller does well the other does that much worse. But that doesn't mean things have to stay that way. Things can
reverse. The only thing keeping Laissez Faire from working is government.
Government will never allow Laissez Faire to work because it takes away
from their power. Government will always try to convince us that we
need regulation and intervention from them even though that's what really is hurting us. Communism on the other hand is Utopian fantasy or actually
it requires Utopian fantasy to work. Communism requires that people not
be corrupt and greedy for it to work but this is utopian fantasy.
De Facto Monopolies are not a bad thing. Inventors are de facto monopolies because they have no competition. They can't have
competition because they just invented their invention. There's
nothing wrong with there being a de facto monopoly that by
definition has no competition. De facto monopolies can never last
indefinitely because sooner or later in a laissez faire economy
competition will arise. Somebody else will create the same product
or service (if someone can invent it. Someone can copy it.) and
sell it for cheaper or sell it for more quality. Buyers will then decide
which one they want. Buyers can also boycott and force prices
to go down that way. I think it is a myth that government intervention
is what stopped poor working conditions just as I think it is a myth
that the Civil War stopped slavery. What really stopped poor working
conditions are advancements in technology. The more advance
technology becomes the less need there is for poor working conditions.
Even if we took down child labor laws, the idea that we would have
a child labor crisis is nonsense. First of all, it probably be classified
under child abuse (Laissez Faire is not pardoned from crime) and
second there really is no need for child labor anymore.

Actually, capitalist Utopianism does exist: it's called anarcho-capitalism, which is what anyone is advocating when they are against any level of redistribution of wealth by the government (i.e. taxation/tariffs), which always amounts to some intervention in the market system. How do you propose to supply the government with needed funds (for instance, to provision the Armed Forces) in the absence of such revenue streams? And given such a system, how do you avoid the massive concentrations of wealth and power that would surely arise leading to unrepresentative regional domination of populations without the mitigating hand of government? You have heard of trust busting, right?

The key fault in communist Utopias is planning failure, as Wooster has outlined. However, its mirror image in capitalist Utopias is market failure. Both have happened (most recently market failure). There is no evidence that market failure can be avoided by the abolition of government regulation. In fact, the opposite is true, as I have stated. The problem is extremism. The reason we have social programs is because pureland capitalism is simply too harsh for the public to stomach. People simply don't like extremes, and pushing them into such only leads to social unrest. It doesn't matter if the system fails structurally or if the polity simply will not have it and force its failure. Fail is fail, and neither communism or capitalism actually will work in their pure form because of human nature. People are both too greedy and not cruel enough en masse to allow either system to flourish in purity. You can argue for your pure (extreme Utopian) systems all you want, but it won't happen. Even in near-pure form, neither will last. The pendulum always swings back.

mrsticky005
04-07-2011, 03:56 AM
Actually, capitalist Utopianism does exist: it's called anarcho-capitalism, which is what anyone is advocating when they are against any level of redistribution of wealth by the government (i.e. taxation/tariffs), which always amounts to some intervention in the market system. How do you propose to supply the government with needed funds (for instance, to provision the Armed Forces) in the absence of such revenue streams? And given such a system, how do you avoid the massive concentrations of wealth and power that would surely arise leading to unrepresentative regional domination of populations without the mitigating hand of government? You have heard of trust busting, right?

The key fault in communist Utopias is planning failure, as Wooster has outlined. However, its mirror image in capitalist Utopias is market failure. Both have happened (most recently market failure). There is no evidence that market failure can be avoided by the abolition of government regulation. In fact, the opposite is true, as I have stated. The problem is extremism. The reason we have social programs is because pureland capitalism is simply too harsh for the public to stomach. People simply don't like extremes, and pushing them into such only leads to social unrest. It doesn't matter if the system fails structurally or if the polity simply will not have it and force its failure. Fail is fail, and neither communism or capitalism actually will work in their pure form because of human nature. People are both too greedy and not cruel enough en masse to allow either system to flourish in purity. You can argue for your pure (extreme Utopian) systems all you want, but it won't happen. Even in near-pure form, neither will last. The pendulum always swings back.

I'm for Laissez-Faire Free Market Capitalism. Not Anarchocapitalism.
The difference being is that I think taxes are a necessary evil but
really only inasmuch as I have no better solutions myself and have
yet to know of any better alternatives. I think taxes should be low.
I don't claim Laissez-Faire Free Market Capitalism is be a system
with no flaws. Nor do I claim it to be a system that will benefit
everyone. Though I think it could benefit everyone theoretically.
One of the main reasons I am for Laissez Faire Free Market Capitalism
is that it is system that adjusts itself. The only constant is change.
I think Communism works or rather does not work in contrast to change.
I think Communism is too static. It is like a stick rushing down a river.
It may be strong and sturdy for a good while but then it will the
rocks of human behavior and break apart. Communism expects us
to be robots and to fit nicely into formulas. But reality is not that.
Laissez Faire Free Market Capitalism is more like the river itself.
It hits the rocks of human behavior and though it is disrupted
it continues on. Even if the river is dammed up it only takes
the explosion of innovation to burst the dam like that movie
Force 10 from Navaronne and continue the flow of the free market.


Of course I'm no economist and it could be that I just like Laissez Faire Capitalism because I like to pronounce it as Lazy Fair Capitalism. :)


Stay Gold...Standard

Mr Sticky http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll69/Chilaxxon/sticky.gifhttp://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll69/Chilaxxon/sticky.gif5