1. Post #241
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    Well the problem with the USSR was the lack of personal freedoms, not the level of poverty I'd say.

  2. Post #242
    Gold Member
    Fables's Avatar
    August 2007
    4,239 Posts
    I'm not a facist to any extent. Neither am I a libertarian. Please don't judge me for my username (RonPaul4ever.) I think Ron Paul is a cool guy, but purely politically I rather prefer someone like Mitt Romney. I'm a conservative, and not a libertarian.

    Though, I have never said that I'm the best one suited to debate socialism and communism as an ideology. I'm probably better at debating common domestic politics; tax rates etc. than huge ideological topics.

    Anyhow, I can't just look at how so many people on facepunch accepts something as destructive as socialism without looking at it critically. I would be glad to see someone more dedicated in ideologies to enter this debate on the capitalist side. Somehow, it seems like conservatives and libertarians have better things to do than debating socialism on a web forum like Facepunch.
    I didn't state you were the fascist. You still have the condescending attitude.

  3. Post #243
    Dennab
    September 2011
    1,790 Posts
    Traditional market economy best

  4. Post #244
    RonPaul4ever's Avatar
    July 2011
    112 Posts
    A long text with Wikipedia quotes
    I show you heavy and well-reviewed sources and you throw up Wikipedia which is banned on pretty much all universities?

    You're say about life-expectancy was contradicting with itself. "The standard of living was equal to that of the average US citizen" and "for the most part, the West had the upper hand in terms of standard of living." are statements that are opposing each other.

    Post-Soviet states are having a tough time since they have been used to communism for about 80 years. If you think everything will be perfect when switching from such a long period of communism to capitalism, you are wrong. Eventually, the post-Soviet states will develop a more successful society with a well-functioning market economy.

    I didn't state you were a fascist.
    I find it hard to support the capitalist side when the people advocating it, are a Fascist.
    Seems like many people are arguing with themselves today?

    Ignorant and naive comments regarding revolutions in general
    Have you ever read Edmund Burke's - Reflections on the revolution in France ? If you haven't I advise you to so. You'll maybe then understand that revolutions do often lead to even worse conditions than before the revolution was carried out. Revolutions should only be performed during extreme situations when human rights are being sincerely oppressed. With the knowledge that all communist revolutions have failed (I even think you agree on this one), it's pretty worthless to throw away all the stability and prosperity we have today for yet another attempt to create a socialist society.

    Traditional market economy best
    Yep, let those words sum up this debate.

  5. Post #245
    Gold Member
    Karlos's Avatar
    May 2005
    1,858 Posts
    all of your posts are utterly worthless. you appeal to ad hominem because you have no argument to make, you only discuss vague "qualities of living" in former soviet states and vague hypothesis on the effects of revolutions on the economy while refusing to engage in any meaningful understanding or analysis of this economy. the only reason you'd do this is if you knew nothing about it; in short, you're an ignorant tool spouting propaganda you don't understand. you have nothing to add to this thread.

  6. Post #246
    Retardation's Avatar
    July 2009
    2,314 Posts
    I show you heavy and well-reviewed sources and you throw up Wikipedia which is banned on pretty much all universities?
    lol, do you even know how wikipedia articles are complied, especially those who are protected? the [#] besides every point they make is a source.

    You're say about life-expectancy was contradicting with itself. "The standard of living was equal to that of the average US citizen" and "for the most part, the West had the upper hand in terms of standard of living." are statements that are opposing each other.
    Ive not contradicted anything - the USSR had both good periods of time and bad ones, as clearly indicated by their life expectancy in the 60's which was higher than the US and then the slight decline in the 70's.
    It had its ups and downs, which is why I said it was equal to the US but for the most part the West had the upper hand.

    Post-Soviet states are having a tough time since they have been used to communism for about 80 years. If you think everything will be perfect when switching from such a long period of communism to capitalism, you are wrong. Eventually, the post-Soviet states will develop a more successful society with a well-functioning market economy.
    what

    why do you they need to change anything. everything was practically fine up until they made the switch.

  7. Post #247
    RonPaul4ever's Avatar
    July 2011
    112 Posts
    I will drop out from this pathetic argumentation now. Basically, what we can see is one person arguing with himself. Another one who is sad because everyone on his beloved forums (the only place where he can argue for communism without being owned.) do not agree with his radical, destructive and pathetic views that are taken straight from 1917. Then finally, we got the guy who believe pigs can fly, unicorns exist and the world is made of rainbows. At least we can say that his username is extremely appropriate.

    I will now refer you, to someone who's more suited to debate socialism than I am; Milton Friedman.


  8. Post #248
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2006
    3,001 Posts
    It's not surprising the conservative in this thread didn't have shit to offer discusion wise and ends with a post full of bitching. IMO you lost your credibility when you tried to distance yourself from libertarianism, the logical conclusion of classical liberalism conservatives can't seem reconcile with yet always hark to.

    Maybe this thread will get some better quality anti-communists now.

  9. Post #249
    RonPaul4ever's Avatar
    July 2011
    112 Posts
    It's not surprising the conservative in this thread didn't have shit to offer discusion wise and ends with a post full of bitching. IMO you lost your credibility when you tried to distance yourself from libertarianism, the logical conclusion of classical liberalism conservatives can't seem reconcile with yet always hark to.

    Maybe this thread will get some better quality anti-communists now.
    I'm definitely leaning towards classical liberalism when it comes to fiscal issues, but otherwise I differ a lot from libertarians; like most conservatives do. I hope you understand that conservatism and classical liberalism motivates their standpoints in very different ways purely ideologically.

    However, if you want to take over the anti-communist side here, you're very welcome to do so.

  10. Post #250
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2006
    3,001 Posts
    I won't be doing that seeing as I'm a marxist.

    But american conservatism is pretty much right wing nationalism mixed with a gutted version of libertarianism. It's phony BS kept alive by a large and rich section of the bourgeoisie and their own media's presence. It's a bit contemptible imo.

  11. Post #251
    electric926's Avatar
    January 2009
    1,079 Posts
    I believe capitalism is the better system because it doesn't try to be perfect. If pure communism could exist in its intended form, it would be dandy, but it's my belief that communism is impossible in its intended state.

    Capitalism is far from perfect, but it's the best we've got so far.

  12. Post #252
    Gold Member
    Fables's Avatar
    August 2007
    4,239 Posts
    Seems like many people are arguing with themselves today?
    I was referring to Kellerbewohner. The condescending attitude never stops does it?

  13. Post #253
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    I believe capitalism is the better system because it doesn't try to be perfect. If pure communism could exist in its intended form, it would be dandy, but it's my belief that communism is impossible in its intended state.

    Capitalism is far from perfect, but it's the best we've got so far.
    As has been stated more than once, Communism was never written about as a utopia nor as a perfect state. Not by Marx and not by Engels.

  14. Post #254
    electric926's Avatar
    January 2009
    1,079 Posts
    As has been stated more than once, Communism was never written about as a utopia nor as a perfect state. Not by Marx and not by Engels.
    It's certainly the intention, though.

  15. Post #255

    August 2011
    294 Posts
    It's certainly the intention, though.
    Marx believed that Communism will create a better society than Capitalism, that is hardly utopian.

  16. Post #256
    q0q
    q0q's Avatar
    February 2012
    699 Posts
    I think the ideal political system would be something like what Sweden has, a middle grounds between socialism and capitalism.

    Edited:

    Well the problem with the USSR was the lack of personal freedoms, not the level of poverty I'd say.

    The problem with the USSR was the lack of personal freedoms AND the level of poverty. The USSR was pretty damn close to being a third world country for a long time, now I'd wager that they are still a second world country. The problem with communism is that it may sound great on paper, but in the end it will never work out. Every live test of communism that we have seen has ended up in a semi-dictatorship because the people responsible for the distribution of wealth and care abused their power.

  17. Post #257
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    I think the ideal political system would be something like what Sweden has, a middle grounds between socialism and capitalism.

    Edited:




    The problem with the USSR was the lack of personal freedoms AND the level of poverty. The USSR was pretty damn close to being a third world country for a long time, now I'd wager that they are still a second world country. The problem with communism is that it may sound great on paper, but in the end it will never work out. Every live test of communism that we have seen has ended up in a semi-dictatorship because the people responsible for the distribution of wealth and care abused their power.
    speaking of which, the whole first world second world thing started during the Cold War. First world referred to countries allied with the U.S, second world referred to countries allied with the U.S.S.R, and third world was developing nations that purposely didn't choose a side.

    Back on topic, the Level of poverty in the USSR was certainly a huge problem. But both that and the lack of freedom stem from Lenin's belief in the Vanguard party.

  18. Post #258
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2006
    3,001 Posts
    The USSR was nowhere near being a third world country, even the old Russian empire was past that point as the 5th largest economy in europe. By 1933 after the NEP and the first five year plan, the USSR was an industrial and technical giant that would eventually use its massive productive capability to build a valuable new trade bloc out of a bunch of peasant dominated, semi feudal countries. It wasn't really until 1985 with radical liberal reforms the economy began to sink.

    Btw kakistocrat, that 'three worlds' thing is a maoist thing and doesn't mean any of that.

  19. Post #259
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    The USSR was nowhere near being a third world country, even the old Russian empire was past that point as the 5th largest economy in europe. By 1933 after the NEP and the first five year plan, the USSR was an industrial and technical giant that would eventually use its massive productive capability to build a valuable new trade bloc out of a bunch of peasant dominated, semi feudal countries. It wasn't really until 1985 with radical liberal reforms the economy began to sink.

    Btw kakistocrat, that 'three worlds' thing is a maoist thing and doesn't mean any of that.
    you sure?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World

    Wikipedia says it does mean that, and so does my history text book.

  20. Post #260
    Marbalo's Avatar
    June 2011
    2,310 Posts
    Can you guys actually source the claim that the USSR was 'poverty riddled'?

    According to wikipedia, in the late-Soviet period the level of poverty in the USSR stood at 1.5% as opposed to that of the US which was about 15-20%.

  21. Post #261
    userman122's Avatar
    March 2010
    903 Posts
    I think that Communism works in theory, but not practically. I am not a fan of Capitalism either, and strict capitalism is not what I want. I like socialism, with taxes but still; a generally speaking free society.

    On-topic: I think communism CAN work perfectly well, I just don't think it ever will.

  22. Post #262
    Gold Member
    Keys's Avatar
    August 2005
    1,130 Posts
    Both systems are fatally flawed.

    Communism As many have said before me; works great in theory, but not practically. It assumes that everyone is put equally on the same footing. While Ben is a shoe maker and Larry is a woodcutter they are both fed, housed, paid, and warm all the same at the end of the night. In reality however, the needs of the many come second before the needs of a very few who typically see "Everyone else" as necessary to abide by Communism while they themselves are privileged to do as they like. This leads to an imbalance and abuse of the system. It will almost always fail.

    Capitalism, a system we in the West here are all too familiar with, works great in the beginning. Capitalism encourages competition and a strong economy. With everyone competing the best products are sure to come out. Unfortunately, after the economy has existed for a while and it's buyers/sellers learn the ropes, they begin to manipulate and cheat the system in an effort to become the "top dog" of whatever it is they are buying and selling. This is how come companies such as Walmart and Goldman sax have been able to become so large and powerful within their industries. So again, Capitalism works at first but not forever.



    Personally, neither of them are ideal nor is any other economic structure around today. They are all principally based off an idea of infinite resources, resources without end. This view or belief is severely flawed and will lead us down a dark road. We need a system that runs an ECONOMY, Capitalism and Communism are not economies, they are systems. Economies work to distribute and safeguard a limited supply of resources according to supply/demand. What we do now is mindlessly waste resources under the name of something entirely different.

  23. Post #263
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    Communism As many have said before me; works great in theory, but not practically. It assumes that everyone is put equally on the same footing. While Ben is a shoe maker and Larry is a woodcutter they are both fed, housed, paid, and warm all the same at the end of the night. In reality however, the needs of the many come second before the needs of a very few who typically see "Everyone else" as necessary to abide by Communism while they themselves are privileged to do as they like. This leads to an imbalance and abuse of the system. It will almost always fail.
    You seem to be talking about this on the idea that Communism is 'everyone gets paid the same', when it's far more complex than that. If there exist classes with large gaps in wealth and a power hierarchy supported by a state, it's not Communist (or at least not Marxist). I hate this passive aggressive notion of "it works on paper, but doesn't work in reality". It either works or it doesn't.

  24. Post #264
    Tampio's Avatar
    May 2007
    722 Posts
    Well the problem with the USSR was the lack of personal freedoms, not the level of poverty I'd say.
    Housing was poor.

  25. Post #265
    Marbalo's Avatar
    June 2011
    2,310 Posts
    They are all principally based off an idea of infinite resources, resources without end. This view or belief is severely flawed and will lead us down a dark road.
    I disagree.

    I believe, that if we would adopt a global, unified ideology, we would indeed run faster out of resources - but, this will also stimulate massive technological and industrial innovations and breakthroughs, we would struggle to come up with a solution at first, and then eventually expand onward into the universe in search of resources and planets to inhabit and colonize.

    Basically, speeding up humanity.

    Edited:

    Housing was poor.
    It was average, and even high at times.

  26. Post #266
    Gold Member
    Zenreon117's Avatar
    April 2008
    5,333 Posts
    Each, in concept is fully viable and effective. However in practice both systems get corrupt faster than an apple in a pile of maggots. The problem is that both rely on a subjective leadership, and involve either monetary or freedom inequality. These two things cause unrest in the populous regardless of how pure the original intentions were.

  27. Post #267
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    Each, in concept is fully viable and effective. However in practice both systems get corrupt faster than an apple in a pile of maggots. The problem is that both rely on a subjective leadership, and involve either monetary or freedom inequality. These two things cause unrest in the populous regardless of how pure the original intentions were.
    communism? subjective leadership? freedom inequality? can you please explain how exactly those relate.

  28. Post #268
    Tampio's Avatar
    May 2007
    722 Posts
    It was average, and even high at times.
    As far as I can see, most of even the well kept ''Khrushchyovka''s are ugly and in a quite bad condition.

    These were supposted to be temporary and Khrushchev declared to have ''achieved communism'' (and better housing) in 20 years, which would have been the 1980's, but now up to the 2010's people are still living in these apartments. Apartments were built on the principle: Build fast and in huge quantities.

    Actually these buildings were built to have a 25-year lifetime, aka. these apartments were ''disposable''.

    Once again Communism failed to achieve something.

    Idea was good, but the whole system eventually fails. Partially because of the human nature.

  29. Post #269
    Marbalo's Avatar
    June 2011
    2,310 Posts
    As far as I can see, most of even the well kept ''Khrushchyovka''s are ugly and in a quite bad condition.

    These were supposted to be temporary and Khrushchev declared to have ''achieved communism'' (and better housing) in 20 years, which would have been the 1980's, but now up to the 2010's people are still living in these apartments. Apartments were built on the principle: Build fast and in huge quantities.

    Actually these buildings were built to have a 25-year lifetime, aka. these apartments were ''disposable''.
    Let me guess, you dug up some wikipedia article on Khrushchyovkas and used it as a basis for the assumption that the entire housing system in the Soviet Union was shit.

    Khrushchyovkas do not represent the entirety of Soviet/Russian housing. And just because it was a 'communal house' doesn't make it shit, private housing is strictly a Western phenomena and is not factually better.
    Although, I am not glorifying Soviet housing, for it is a known fact that it was one of the shortcomings of the SU - and even then, was not that bad.

    Once again Communism failed to achieve something.

    Idea was good, but the whole system eventually fails. Partially because of the human nature.
    Once again, from my calculations - the 12 millionth time, Communism had nothing to do with the Soviet Union, the housing, or anything. The myth that human nature interrupts communism's implementation has also been refuted countless of times.

  30. Post #270
    Gold Member
    Jimbojib's Avatar
    April 2008
    3,606 Posts
    Communism is fine until you introduce humans to it, because there will be people high up who abuse it.

    As in, it works well in theory, socialism is where it's at, left wing in general is, but I don't think politics really follow wings anymore at all.

  31. Post #271
    Gold Member
    Zenreon117's Avatar
    April 2008
    5,333 Posts
    communism? subjective leadership? freedom inequality? can you please explain how exactly those relate.
    Well under capitalism, we are all "equal" unless you consider the difference in monetary wealth across the nation and what powers that brings. Under Communism we are all "equal" unless you consider the privileges and rights of the higher party members as compared to the common folk. And by subjective leadership I mean it always has the human factor of ego and greed that comes with wealth and resource management.

  32. Post #272
    werrek's Avatar
    December 2009
    474 Posts
    Capitalism, for human greed ruins what communism is.

  33. Post #273

    August 2011
    294 Posts
    Well under capitalism, we are all "equal" unless you consider the difference in monetary wealth across the nation and what powers that brings. Under Communism we are all "equal" unless you consider the privileges and rights of the higher party members as compared to the common folk. And by subjective leadership I mean it always has the human factor of ego and greed that comes with wealth and resource management.
    Communism never meant to be 'led' by a communist party; the idea that a 'vanguard' party can lead the revolution is something that Lenin invented. A Communist party is in itself an anti-thesis, for Marx believed that Communism could only be achieved through a "spontaneous, revolutionary class consciousness". The proletariat were never meant to be 'led' by a party/dictatorship.

    I wish people would stop thinking that the USSR and other dictatorships were Communist (The USSR was a Leninist dictatorship). You can't have a leader in a true Communist system.

    Capitalism, for human greed ruins what communism is.
    Communism, for human greed ruins what Capitalism is.

    Capitalism works fine until people get greedy, take excessive risks and then plunge the economy into turmoil. That is hardly a sustainable economic model.

  34. Post #274
    ECrownofFire's Avatar
    January 2011
    2,004 Posts
    Communism, for human greed ruins what Capitalism is.

    Capitalism works fine until people get greedy, take excessive risks and then plunge the economy into turmoil. That is hardly a sustainable economic model.
    And Communism is supposed to be immune to this how?

    Capitalism works fine until some guy decides that the government ought to make some laws that end up benefiting the elite and you get corporatism.

    Edited:

    Also note that "true" Marxist communism is technically anarchism.

  35. Post #275

    August 2011
    294 Posts
    And Communism is supposed to be immune to this how?

    Capitalism works fine until some guy decides that the government ought to make some laws that end up benefiting the elite and you get corporatism.

    Edited:

    Also note that "true" Marxist communism is technically anarchism.
    I am not saying Communism is immune to human greed, I was merely pointing out that Capitalism can be just as broken and misused as Communism is. The post I was referring to implied that Capitalism is immune from greed so I countered that in the same way the poster off-handedly dismissed Communism.

    For me personally, I think that Capitalism is a good way to distribute resources but I do not think it is the fairest way to distribute resources. In a way I see Socialism and Communism as a way to further Liberal ideas. You cannot have equality of opportunity if there are massive differences in economic wealth. The poor have hidden talents but are unable to develop them because they have to spend their time stacking shelves in order to survive - that is hardly the best way for humanity to develop its full potential.

  36. Post #276
    Destroyer25's Avatar
    February 2012
    11 Posts
    I can't believe this is even being debated...

    Capitalism is the best socioeconomic system that mankind has come up with thus far. Why? Capitalism, is not inherently flaws like Marxism is.

    When Capitalism was first introduced in the early 19th Century, the flaws were obvious. Yes workers were exploited, and guess what? government regulation and social policy fixed that problem. For the last 200 years the world has operated on the market principles of Capitalism, and we've seen more advancements than in mankind's previous thousands of years of existence combined. Now before some economically illiterate child claims that Capitalism is broken, and that it caused the 2007 recession. Let me remind you that Capitalism, our socioeconomic system, is the constant, and governments and their policies, are the variable. And when you look at the facts you will see that all the major periods of economic downturn in the past 200 years, which have been mere spots, in a period of massive economic growth , you will see that they were all caused by poor government policy. The Great Depression was caused by government regulation and intervention. There was no depression in America until Hoover started interfering in the economy. Unemployment in USA in the 1st year after the stock market crash was never over 10%. It later soared to the high 20s during the FDR administration.

    This latest recession, was caused by bad government policy that facilitated and created Crony Capitalism and Corporate Socialism. Bailing out banks is not Capitalism. Bail outs don't happen in Capitalism, period. Banks don't get favors from the government in Capitalism, period.

    Now on to Marxism. Marxism is the worst socioeconomic system ever created. And I say Marxism, not Communism. The Marxist theory it's self is inherently broken. Which is why whenever Marxism is implemented, we get more sinister forms of Communism, like Stalinism or Maoism. If you still refuse to accept that then you can read this:

    The Flaws of Marxism Ė The 7th Edition

    One of the fundamental problems with the Marxist system is the way that Marx perceived production. Specifically the way wealth was produced in the Capitalist system. In his eyes, labor was the single most important aspect of the production of goods, which creates wealth. Thus, it was logical to him that the power should be in the hands of the worker, the man who actually made the goods. Rather than those managing the enterprises and getting rich by "exploiting" the so called "real" producers of the wealth. However this fails to take a few things into account.

    The Marxist system ignores the fact that the work performed by the management, the owners and the investors is just as, if not more important than the work of those physically producing the goods. This is a fallacy that is still widespread today. Society tends to view laborers or workers as those who are employed, when in actuality the employer is no different. The fact that the employers are far fewer than the employees does not mean the employers play a role of lesser importance in the production of goods. Their role is not only more intellectually demanding, but also commonly requires more hours of work than the average laborer. For this reason it is infeasible to have the workers running everything, because they would all need to be educated in a wide number of fields that are critical to the efficient management of a company. A hierarchy exists in the workplace for this very reason. The work performed by those at the top usually requires a formal education, and involves many more hours of work. While not physically demanding, the intellectual demand is great. Anyone who knows a business person is well aware of this fact.

    Now while keeping the above in mind, we must remember that this does not mean that the worker is expendable. Marx believed that in the Capitalist system this was so, and while at the time that may have been true, today it is not. In a Capitalist system, workers have two major advantages that their counterparts did not enjoy under Communism or Socialism. The first is the average personís ability to start their own business. While you may be working for someone else today, you may be working for yourself tomorrow. Capitalism allows anyone who has a good idea to make a business with minimal red tape. One doesnít even need capital, as it can be borrowed from banks or directly from investors. This is something that doesnít exist in a Marxist society, where all businesses are collectively owned, and nobody makes any profit off of them. The second advantage is that businesses have to compete with each other for labor. Because of this, businesses have a vested interested in treating their employees well, so that their competitors canít steal them. But competition does not exist in a Marxist system, and thus everyone is paid exactly the same amount, even though, as stated above, the employee may do less difficult work than the employer.

    The Marxist system also seems to rely on the fallacious assumption that labor is the only necessary input that produces an output, or at the very least, the most important input. If that was true, then everyone would be capable of producing whatever they need, but that isnít the case. Capital, knowledge (in the form of management, or skilled labor), technology (which in our modern world is necessary to achieve enough efficiency to be profitable and in many cases, to achieve enough volume of production to supply the demand) and natural resource, are all absolutely necessary inputs to successfully create outputs. A business needs centralized leadership to ensure that all these necessary inputs are plentiful and ready when necessary. There needs to be wealthy people, and or banks, to provide the crucial start up capital necessary for getting a business running, there needs to be skilled laborers who are superiors to the unskilled laborers, and much more for a modern economy to function. For these reasons, the workers cannot manage a large business, let alone an industry or a whole economy made up of hundreds of thousands of businesses.

    Perhaps Marxís biggest misunderstanding of the Capitalist system was his belief that profits are the exploitation of the employee by the employer. Profits are actually the left over capital from sales after all expenses have been paid, which includes salaries. So the reality is that once employees have been paid, the owner of the business can do as he pleases with the profits. If he wants to give himself ridiculous bonuses or hide all the profits away in a Swiss bank account thatís his choice. But that begs the question why donít all business owners do this? Arguably in recent years it has been a more common occurrence, but the fact of the matter is that it is a horrible business practice to keep all the profits for yourself. Thatís a one way ticket to bankruptcy for your business. In a market with competition, profits MUST, be reinvested into the company. Otherwise you'll fall behind your competition. And this is what has happened in the global economy today. Companies have been plagued by incompetent businessmen that have stolen money from their companies, rather than doing the logical thing and reinvesting the money in their business, which would have resulted in the continued sustainability and profitability of their business. Had they done this, they would have been able to increase their salaries at no damage to their business, their employees or the economy.

    Now whether the worker is being exploited in the sense that they are being paid very little is another matter entirely, and to determine that we must establish what an exploitative wage is. Any rational person will see that the concept of an exploitative wage is completely relative, rather than absolute. It is up for the individual person to decide what they are willing to work for, and the government has no place in telling people that they must be paid an arbitrary amount of money. Ironically, this is exactly what takes place in a Communist system in practice. The price of everything is arbitrarily decided by an army of bureaucrats.

    The Marxist system also ignores the fact that technological innovation is dependent on profits, rather than solely the will to do so. Most Marxists suggest that workers can simply cooperate to achieve technological innovation. However as stated before, the fear of bankruptcy is what forces companies to make profits, so they can continue to innovate and expand, in order to remain competitive. Now while the threat of competition does not exist in a Communist or Socialist society, it doesn't change the fact that profits are what facilitate innovation. Without profits, companies would be forced to divert production in order to facilitate innovation, but in a Communist system, any diversion of production will result in economic collapse, whereas in Capitalism it only means bankruptcy for one corporation.

    Thus we can conclude that innovation is impossible in a Communist system, because in order to achieve it, production would have to be slowed down in order to split energies so that innovation or expansion could be achieved. In moderation this would create a need to reduce consumption to rationing levels, or alternatively, it could destroy society by not supplying enough to meet demand. Now theoretically these problems could be solved by increasing the scale of production, which would allow enough to be produced, while innovation still occurred. But when taking all of Marxism other flaws into account, one can see that such measures would be impossible to achieve. As in any system not coordinated by prices, allocating scare resources which have alternative uses is extremely difficult, thus causing horrible inefficiency. The chief reason for Marxismí inefficiency is its lack of a price coordinated market. In a Marxist system, good are produced to meet societyís needs, but in a large state, itís impossible to know what those needs are. How can one calculate how much grain in one region needs to be shipped to the other regions? How can the same be done for timber? Or fuel? Most importantly, how will international trade be facilitated? If you arenít producing goods for profit, then you wonít be able to sell them.

    Finally, Marxís most serious misunderstanding of the Capitalist system was his belief that private property was merely a way for the rich to keep wealth away from the poor. This ignores one important aspect of human nature though, which Aristotle summarized quite well when he said, ďThat which no one owns, no one will care for.Ē What Aristotle meant by this was, if someone does not own something, he has no incentives to ensure that it is well kept, or operating efficiently. In a Marxist or Socialist system, everything is commonly owned, meaning everyone is responsible for it. This leads to a phenomenon where nobody maintains the commonly owned property, as they feel that someone else will just do it. Since everyone is equally responsible, nobody can delegate tasks, nobody can be blamed for something not working, or something not getting done. The people will just blame each other. One also needs to take into account that everyone is to be paid the same amount, but everyone is also suppose to be entitled to what they work for. This is a huge contradiction in Marxism that tends to get overlooked. As stated before, Marx believed that Capitalists were taking money from the ďrealĒ producers of the wealth, and that the workers should be entitled to what they themselves produce. But how can everyone be equal and get equal wages if everyone is suppose to be entitled to what they themselves work for.

    Letís suppose there are 2 workers, Worker A and Worker B and together they can produce goods worth $200, or $100 each. Worker A workers hard and produces $100 worth of goods, but Worker B, does not, and only produces goods worth $50. Now if both workers are suppose to get an equal salary, then both workers can only be paid $75. Worker A is now taking a loss, and has no incentive to work hard, as he will only get $75 despite him producing goods worth $100. So maybe the next day he only produces goods worth $75. Worker B, seeing his colleague slacking, decides to work half as hard, only producing goods worth $25. Now, both workers only get $50 salary. So what can be done? Thereís no management, nobody is in charge, and so the unproductive laborer canít be fired.

    Taking everything into account, one can only conclude that a Communist or Socialist society, even if implemented as Marx envisioned (Which is simply impossible given the human psychology), would be in a constant state of economic and technological stagnation. The system would eventually destroy the society due to the difficulties in allocating resources. People would be living in a constant state of horrible poverty, technologically frozen in time, until the horrible conditions lead to violent revolution. And again, this all assumes that such a society could be achieved in the first place, which it most certainly could not. The most fundamental flaw of Marxism has nothing to do with economics at all. It has to do with psychology.

    The human race as a whole is inherently greedy. Individuals may not be greedy, but collectively, humans are self centered. We think about ourselves above others. Now while some people may suggest that this is just a mindset that the current socioeconomic system has created, historical study will prove that since Ancient times, individuals have cared about themselves first and their community second. Thatís just how the human mind works, and we need to accept that. But Marx did not. Despite the fact that we are self centered, his theories were predicated on the fallacy that humans are inherently, kind, caring, and cooperative. But we arenít, so what happens when people resist because they value personal freedoms above the ďgreater goodĒ? Well then they need to be killed, but what if they start a guerrilla war? Well then there will need to be a police state with a powerful military to suppress these people and in order for that to happen you need a dictator. But what if the dictator doesnít want to give up power? Now while many believe that a Stalinist style dictatorship is not the inevitable result of Communist ideas being put into practice, history, and simple logic prove that it is.

    There is simply no way that Marxism is a viable socioeconomic system for any modern state. The sooner we recognize this as the fact that it is, the sooner we can continue to move forwards economically, rather than backwards.

    Now you may have not taken this all in, and thatís fine. Socioeconomics isnít one of the easiest subjects to grapple with. But if there is one thing that you should try to take away from this paper, it is this: In a Communist state, all other political theories would be violently suppressed. But in our Capitalist society, people are free to read about whatever they want to. You are not forced to believe anything. You can read an infinite number of opinions on a wide variety of different political theories. That is not a liberty that people had in Communist countries. Itís a liberty we take for granted. Thanks to great men like John Locke, and Adam Smith, who pioneered the concepts of individual freedoms, we are free to believe whatever ideologies we want to, whereas under Marx, you would be forced to believe in Communism and Communism alone. So while you may not agree with Locke and Smith, at least acknowledge that you are able to read about Marx because of them. So ask yourself, would you have the same liberties under Marx?

  37. Post #277

    August 2011
    294 Posts
    I can't believe this is even being debated...
    Capitalism is the best socioeconomic system that mankind has come up with thus far. Why? Capitalism, is not inherently flaws like Marxism is.
    Capitalism is inherently flawed as well (as I will divulge later on). Both systems are inherently flawed and that is why no-one in this thread is arguing that one is superior to the other. Most people are arguing we need a balance of the two.

    When Capitalism was first introduced in the early 19th Century, the flaws were obvious. Yes workers were exploited, and guess what? government regulation and social policy fixed that problem.
    Woah, Government regulation in a Capitalist economy?

    Capitalism is designed to work without government intervention. Capitalism arose after the businessmen got fed up with Mercantilism and the large amount of government control it brought.

    For the last 200 years the world has operated on the market principles of Capitalism, and we've seen more advancements than in mankind's previous thousands of years of existence combined.
    That is subjective. I could argue that Capitalism is bad since the world made the most significant leap in advancement during the Ancient Hellenic world. Philosophy, Science, Mathematics, Politics and Democracy all appeared in the space of that time period. Therefore a basic Feudal society is the best socio-economic system?

    Now before some economically illiterate child claims that Capitalism is broken, and that it caused the 2007 recession. Let me remind you that Capitalism, our socioeconomic system, is the constant, and governments and their policies, are the variable. And when you look at the facts you will see that all the major periods of economic downturn in the past 200 years, which have been mere spots, in a period of massive economic growth , you will see that they were all caused by poor government policy. The Great Depression was caused by government regulation and intervention. There was no depression in America until Hoover started interfering in the economy. Unemployment in USA in the 1st year after the stock market crash was never over 10%. It later soared to the high 20s during the FDR administration.
    You have a very odd view of the Great Depression. If bad government policy is the cause of all economic downturns how come the Great Depression effect the entire world and not just America? Did the entire world's politicians screw up simultaneously?

    Also you ignore the fact that there were economic screw-ups before the great depression.

    This latest recession, was caused by bad government policy that facilitated and created Crony Capitalism and Corporate Socialism. Bailing out banks is not Capitalism. Bail outs don't happen in Capitalism, period. Banks don't get favors from the government in Capitalism, period.
    You are correct banks shouldn't get bail-outs under Capitalism. But why were the banks bailed out in the first place?

    In the UK the bank RBS made a disastrous investment in ABN Amro which meant the bank began to haemorrhage money. The UK government had to bail the bank out in order to prevent a collapse of the UK economy. If RBS went bust it would mean a huge amount of UK investments, savings and pensions would have disappeared.

    You cannot claim that the government caused RBS to collapse, it was a bad investment decided by the CEO of RBS. If RBS was not bailed out then the entire UK economy would go into a very deep and very long recession.

    Now on to Marxism. Marxism is the worst socioeconomic system ever created. And I say Marxism, not Communism. The Marxist theory it's self is inherently broken. Which is why whenever Marxism is implemented, we get more sinister forms of Communism, like Stalinism or Maoism.
    You cannot claim that all of Marx is broken. Have you read all of Marx? Marx wrote hundreds of articles and tens of books. University lecturers admit that studying Marx properly would take a lifetime. And for the last time: Stalinism and Maoism are not forms of Communism. First of all, they have a state (something Marx believed should "wither away"). Also Stalinsim and Maoism are merely dictatorships with a state run economy (Marx disagreed with a state and he disagreed with a state-run economy).

    If you still refuse to accept that then you can read this:
    That is a very large bias wall of text. The author is blatantly against Marxism and omits many important details. I could do a point by point analysis on the text you quoted but I won't: it would be a waste of my time and you would not read it anyway. Instead I will take the final paragraph and ridicule it.

    Huge ass bias wall of text posted:
    In a Communist state, all other political theories would be violently suppressed. But in our Capitalist society, people are free to read about whatever they want to. You are not forced to believe anything. You can read an infinite number of opinions on a wide variety of different political theories. That is not a liberty that people had in Communist countries. It’s a liberty we take for granted. Thanks to great men like John Locke, and Adam Smith, who pioneered the concepts of individual freedoms, we are free to believe whatever ideologies we want to, whereas under Marx, you would be forced to believe in Communism and Communism alone. So while you may not agree with Locke and Smith, at least acknowledge that you are able to read about Marx because of them. So ask yourself, would you have the same liberties under Marx?
    Firstly, the author shows his ignorance when he states that a Communist society will suppress political theory. The author is using Stalinism as an example of Communism which it is most definitely not.

    Secondly, Capitalism is not a socio-economic system - it is merely an economic system. Capitalism does not state any way in which society is formed. The author confuses Liberalism with Capitalism which are two completely different things.

    The author's rhetorical question at the end is a logical fallacy - it is an appeal to emotion. To state that Locke (a Liberal and not a Capitalist) and Smith (A capitalist that did not write anything on the type of society we should live in) somehow allow people to read Marx is rubbish. Under a Communist society the people will be free to do what they wish and think what they wish.

    America annoys me greatly when they conflate Liberalism with Capitalism.

    A final thought, please post the author of the wall of text you posted. A proper argument needs to have proper sources.

    TL;DR - Read my points and realise how you debate.

    (Sorry for the wall of text, ignorance annoys me)

  38. Post #278
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,037 Posts
    I can't believe this is even being debated...

    Capitalism is the best socioeconomic system that mankind has come up with thus far. Why? Capitalism, is not inherently flaws like Marxism is.

    When Capitalism was first introduced in the early 19th Century, the flaws were obvious. Yes workers were exploited, and guess what? government regulation and social policy fixed that problem.
    Yeah, it's not like exploitation isn't still rife in huge areas of the world or anything. State capitalism is so paradoxical and shit and it boggles my mind that so many people support it.

  39. Post #279
    Gold Member
    sp00ks's Avatar
    January 2008
    12,052 Posts
    In a Communist state, all other political theories would be violently suppressed. But in our Capitalist society, people are free to read about whatever they want to. You are not forced to believe anything. You can read an infinite number of opinions on a wide variety of different political theories. That is not a liberty that people had in Communist countries. It’s a liberty we take for granted. Thanks to great men like John Locke, and Adam Smith, who pioneered the concepts of individual freedoms, we are free to believe whatever ideologies we want to, whereas under Marx, you would be forced to believe in Communism and Communism alone. So while you may not agree with Locke and Smith, at least acknowledge that you are able to read about Marx because of them. So ask yourself, would you have the same liberties under Marx?
    lmao
    implying there's ever actually been a communist state, and not just socialist dictatorships (and guess what the real problem was there (the dictatorship part))

  40. Post #280
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2006
    3,001 Posts
    'Corporate socialism' lmfao

    Poor liberals. I'd hate to have to redefine everything to suit my views every once in a while.