Is Communism Right?...

[Mathilda]

Sorry Mathilda but to respond more clearly is that politicians are a party in the negotiations in the form of sitting government.

The system is called kolmikantaneuvottelut (tri-base negotiations => don't remember the exact term in english) in which government tries to discuss with the trade unions and the industrial unions about the guidelines to follow.

Sure, the overall annual wage increases are decided that way in conjunction with income tax levels for the following year. Right?
But I'm not sure how much the government is involved with setting the lowest levels. Maybe you know more about this than i do.

 

[JerichoHill]

Well, JerichoHill, that depends how "harm" or "coercion" are defined. Which you probably already knew though.

I believe I could agree with you but I think the most essential question of libertarian is defining those terms. Some people say that is easy, but I think it's rather difficult. So you end up trying to balance things out.

I think it's very easy. Just give me data, and I'll run a regression. I give simple answers to complex questions everyday of my life at work

It is MUCH easier than people make it out to be. What the problem is that no group in power wants to give up their pet beliefs in the face of objective evidence.

 

[amadeus]

@rmsharpes, while I can share some of your ultra liberal views I can't understand why they fail to basic conservatism when it comes to indivual freedoms (abortion, gay mariage, immigration etc), pretty inconsistent.

I'll give you my views on the three of these.

First, I'm conflicted on the abortion issue. We have to choose between the rights of an adult and the rights of a child, and I don't know if I'm ready to have one particular point of view.

For gay marraige, I oppose it on the grounds that it is not the state's place to enforce religious doctrine. I oppose all marriages performed by the state, hetero or homosexual.

Illegal immigration is a law and order issue. If you have no respect for the law and the cultural values of the United States, you should not be here.

Also, could you give us your idea of state investments in infrastructures that mentioned Davo (roads etc...) ?

I'm all for road construction, so far as it is useful and not building bridges in Alaska.

And how would you feel if you had to get a critical chirurgical intervention that you couldn't afford with your money and the ones of all the people you know around ?

As an individual, I'd probably petition them for assistance and guarantee that I'd repay them by some means that would benefit them. We also shouldn't discount the fact that there are charitable organizations that frequently assist those in desperate need.

 

[Xenocrates]

I heard some big corporations crying about how the free market damages them recently. They need rules in order to decide what to do. No rules=impossible decision; the World is too big even for them to comprehend.

We all want freedom, and that requires having the ability to make a decision, but with unlimited choice, it's impossible to make a decision. Imagine playing chess with no rules!

Where Communism is useful is in imposing rules that can allow us to make decisions. However this can go too far, but equally so can can 'liberalism'.

 

[amadeus]

Imagine playing chess with no rules!

The two parties would consent on a clear set of rules, or else they simply would not play.

 

[GinandTonic]

We all want freedom, and that requires having the ability to make a decision, but with unlimited choice, it's impossible to make a decision. Imagine playing chess with no rules!

Possibly a better example would be why is it so hard for a computer to play Go compared to chess?

 

[warpus]

Yes, mainly for defense expenses, police/fire services, and road construction.

What about:

- education
- healthcare
- pensions for the elderly
- unemployment benefits
- energy, water, and waste management systems
- public transportation
- public works (parks, etc.)

The list goes on and on. The government will have its hands in your pocket no matter what.. unless you move to Sealand.

 

[Xenocrates]

Possibly a better example would be why is it so hard for a computer to play Go compared to chess?

I see the proportion of T has increased at the expense of G these days!

Seriously, the capacity to choose is what we all associate with freedom, but when anything goes, we're paralysed by analysis. I don't want unlimited choice; an hour to choose a stereo is all I want to spend, thankyou very much! There's even a medical condition brought on by shopping, where perfectionists freek out in shops because they want to make the best choice, but they can't.

 

[MamboJoel]

For gay marraige, I oppose it on the grounds that it is not the state's place to enforce religious doctrine. I oppose all marriages performed by the state, hetero or homosexual.

I know it's a bit OT (but still about freedom), but just to get an idea : you don't consider that the state can give any rights to the members of a couple when one dies etc ? So there is no civil rights at all in any couple union even when it comes to childs, owning a house ?
If in your POW there are such rights to define, would you accept to give them to gay couples aswell ?
So, in the other way around, if you refuse to define any rights, you basically consider it's the deal of the two members of the couple (well, the n members)to negociate a contrat with the other member ?

Illegal immigration is a law and order issue. If you have no respect for the law and the cultural values of the United States, you should not be here.

But in a total free market, you should be able to go from one country to anothor shouldn't you ?

I'm all for road construction, so far as it is useful and not building bridges in Alaska.

Ok. Fine.

As an individual, I'd probably petition them for assistance and guarantee that I'd repay them by some means that would benefit them. We also shouldn't discount the fact that there are charitable organizations that frequently assist those in desperate need.

So your life will depend on your personal ability to find money by petition. And if you didn't find the money or couldn't for medical reasons ? Apply Darwin rule ? Not suited for survival.
And if I saw you hardy injured, dying on the road, should I ask you $1000 to pay for the oil to drive you to the hospital, the use of the car and the marginal cost of 1 hour spent not doing my daily work ?


Changing subject now. About unions. In your minimal legislation system, what would prevent me and all the other miners of the world to unite and force you as a mine owner to pay us as much as the benefits of your company can afford without you having an interest in selling your company ?

If it comes to freedom, equilibrium by confrontations, these movements are of course accepted by the system itself. So in the rather extremist ultra liberal ideology you believe in unions have total legitimity.

I'm very liberal economically, but you have to know that Civilization is about law, rights and legislation. And whether you like it or not if you reduce them to almost nothing you're left with one thing : Darwin. And I'll let you die on the road if you don't give me those $1000 cash right now.

 

[C~G]

How? Capitalism promotes maximized productivity as one of it's central principles. Without efficient use of resources, profits are lost and business plummets.

Of course it's true what you say but it's very much like in communism. If the system is closed, it can work. But I believe we aren't globally ready because of the major differences for such steps in different geographical zones and technological levels.

I'd prefer a moderate approach to trade unionism. Unionists now have the mentality of "us-versus-them," when they fail to realize they are both part of the same family and both share the same goals.

I absolutely agree.
However I suggest the idea that state is involved as third party that can put the trade unions on the line if needed to. Unfortunately in certain countries like in Finland, certain political party is little bit too close to the trade union while one political party is little bit too close to the industrial union.
In the end they aren't ready to do "tough decisions" in fear of losing reputation from their base.

A corporation cannot force you to do anything; all decisions are made by the individual and the individual alone.

So are you saying that you could create job market that has unemployment rate of zero or even need of employment?
Because that is what you are asking here. Invididuals who dont' have job necessarily have no options any other than to say "uncle" to the corporation that is closest to them. As said if the corporations would have huge need for employees then there wouldn't be a problem.

The products of capitalism contribute far more to the quality of life than the state-run segments of the economy. The state-run economy is inefficient, wasteful, and produces unsatsifactory results because there are no incentives to improve the system.

I believe that is so, but we need state-run segments (or run and monitored through proxy) to balance things out.

Do you really believe that corporations don't examine the long-term consequences of their actions? Do you believe the state is always interested in what is best for everybody, long or short-term?

State is represents the people in democracy, remember?
What does corporation represent? The power of money and the desire of the corporation ruling body that isn't elected democratically.
Corporations don't examine the long-term consequences regarding whole society or the destiny of the workforce unless it somehow affects greatly their chance to make profit.

In all of my experiences and the experiences of the people that I've known, the state has always put it's own interests first.

See above.

It does through competition. If people feel that they are not receiving the value they deserve from the input of their capital, they'll move their capital to another supplier. Would you shop at a business that is trying to "screw" you?

As said state one agent along side with media and courts. These give people the power to fight with the corporations. It's about balance of power. You put too much believe into human nature that the consumers of free market without these agents really make ethical considerations when they buy products.
And it doesn't solve the issue in which the workforce might be abused.

I don't know how to reply to this, because you falsely assume that corporations are somehow out to "get you" and this kind of conspiratorial thinking is just, in my opinion, absurd.

If the corporations could say for certain what they want it will surely start to affect the way people can choose their own path in life. I believe it creates gaps and greatly promotes short term job careers undermining also the education.

And of course they are there to "get me", or would do you think advertising is for?

Corporations and free market know no ethics. If they want to abuse me and my rights as long as they get paid, they will do so. It's the basic principle of capitalism. Basic human need and good old greed, in other words.

Pushing is the right phrase to use, because the state pushes around the free market so much that we are no longer really a free market. We aren't a centralized, command-style economy, but we certainly aren't free.

Look, I'm really into making market more free, but as said I believe we need balance because of the reasons I give. That is just my view.
In the future we might have more free economy but we need approach it step-by-step and also considering also something else than only the market driven society, the people who have to live in it.

The practice of capitalism has always demonstrated that the theories are correct. State interventionism doesn't solve problems, it only creates new ones.

So you are saying there aren't any problems in capitalism. So are you true believer? If you ask me that is blind believe into something that has ever been working really just like communism. Very nice in theory, not so nice in practice.

Again, do you really believe that corporations are conspiring to physically control your life?

You answered that already partly yourself:

A company is only a group of people that share an objective.

Or more precisely this group of people consist mainly the shareholders and the governing body.
The state is only a group of people that share an objective too. In that case it's the voters and the governing body.
If we allow the former get more power than the latter we're in as much trouble as in if we give too much power to the latter than to the former.
So we need balance.

In general terms I agree with you rmsharpe but I believe I just have a healthy dose of self-criticism and criticism towards the capitalist system while being advocate of it.

Sure, the overall annual wage increases are decided that way in conjunction with income tax levels for the following year. Right?
But I'm not sure how much the government is involved with setting the lowest levels. Maybe you know more about this than i do.

Well, I'm not expert of system in Finland.
But I believe the lowest levels are already decided such as minimum wage in law so the govenment just enforces it.
However if the minimum wage would like to be decreased it must be through government after election.

I think it's very easy. Just give me data, and I'll run a regression.

Well, do you think that corporations desire to move a factory from one place to another in the expense of the workforce that have no chance to move with the factore and who have educated and trained themselves to this particular job as harmful act?

 

[Stile]

Without Communism and Stalin in Russia... The Tsars would have fallen before the Nazis waaaaaaaay to easily.... USSR saved Europe from Fascism, Nazis, Genocide, ect... Now... without USSR and Stalin we wouldnt have saved Europe by itself... USSR wanted a Second Front in WWII but Roosevelt was too occupied with Japan and true help didnt come until somewhere around 1944...without USSR we wouldnt have won WWII...

I know others have responded to this, but it is just too silly. The USSR saved itself from the nazis. It wasn't out of benevolence toward Europe that the USSR joined the allies, and all the eastern European nations it "liberated" were annexed.

Most importantly it wasn't out of the strength of a communist system that the USSR had success. The US sent over $11 billion worth of supplies just to the soviets under the Lend/Lease Act and Canada sent more supplies under a similar provision. We're talking over 4 million tons of food, 15 million boots, nearly 2000 locomotives, and over 375,000 trucks among many other things.

 

[GinandTonic]

rm sharp

If you believe in a free market for goods and services, why not labour? For the market to be truly free, the labour market must be truly free. That means no restrictions on movement or employment eligibility.

If you think the market should not be free, please explain why?

 

[Gelion]

Most importantly it wasn't out of the strength of a communist system that the USSR had success. The US sent over $11 billion worth of supplies just to the soviets under the Lend/Lease Act and Canada sent more supplies under a similar provision. We're talking over 4 million tons of food, 15 million boots, nearly 2000 locomotives, and over 375,000 trucks among many other things.

Without US aid Soviet costs of wining the war would have been much larger thats all. US entry into war did not affect its outcome, only its duration [basically what you said about Soviet involvement in reverse].

 

[emzie]

Maoism is just a mix of people starving and bad poetry.

Quote of the ****ing year.

 

[JerichoHill]

@@C~G

I think you're baiting with a question designed to be against free trade, of which I am not.

Withholding goods because one wishes to be better off while others suffer is horrible on both an individualistic scale and a global scale.

 

[C~G]

I think you're baiting with a question designed to be against free trade, of which I am not.

Yes, kind of to prove a point.
It wasn't that easy, now was it?

Withholding goods because one wishes to be better off while others suffer is horrible on both an individualistic scale and a global scale.

Yes and that's why we have to find balancing factors to the free market. Do you agree?

What I see example in this case that the it would be complete waste of money put into state sponsored education if the people who get the education don't have jobs since the corporates don't offer such positions as they follow how the market moves not how the people move.

That's why we need state organizing things. It's only the means that are hard to come by since the state also can cause harm to the freedom of invididuals.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I think communism is just wrong. I value my freedom to buy, sell, and work as I please. I realize that some people have this maternal instinct to protect those who don't thrive under capitalism but, instead of advocating communism, I wish those people would volunteer at a soup kitchen and not scare the rest of us.

 

[nonconformist]

Damn, Pasi got a dl?

 

[JerichoHill]

@@C~G
Yes, kind of to prove a point.
It wasn't that easy, now was it?
--Actually It was very easy.

Yes and that's why we have to find balancing factors to the free market. Do you agree?
--I do not agree with what I think you propose. I believe in regulation, but minimal interference.

What I see example in this case that the it would be complete waste of money put into state sponsored education if the people who get the education don't have jobs since the corporates don't offer such positions as they follow how the market moves not how the people move.
--Wha? So corporations are at FAULT for the educational system failing? It's the educational system that's at fault, not the corporations.

That's why we need state organizing things.
--The state has been pretty horrible at doing lots of things. I think the state needs to be involved when there are "problems of the commons" (look it up), but to say as you did that corporations are at fault for not hiring workers education by our system is silly.

--The politicians have pulled the wool over your eyes. They can't admit that they messed up our educational system (their fault, the whole lot of em) by dumbing it down and not challenging kids. They caved to paternalism. So since blaming themselves would be an admission of guilt, they blame the corporations.

--I'm telling you, that line of logic is BUNK

 

[C~G]

--Actually It was very easy.

To protect the idea of free market and give both the company and the person working in the company their invidual freedom?

--I do not agree with what I think you propose. I believe in regulation, but minimal interference.

What do you think I propose?
We might be in the end barking the same tree.

--Wha? So corporations are at FAULT for the educational system failing? It's the educational system that's at fault, not the corporations.

Of course. I absolutely agree.
Basically my idea is that the society and the state should be better organized for the free market, not the other way around.

The state has been pretty horrible at doing lots of things. I think the state needs to be involved when there are "problems of the commons" (look it up), but to say as you did that corporations are at fault for not hiring workers education by our system is silly.

Of course it isn't their "fault" but the state has to think these things out. As I said otherwise nobody is looking out for the neither the workers or the society as whole.
I don't blame the corps, they just do business, and that is my main point.

The politicians have pulled the wool over your eyes. They can't admit that they messed up our educational system (their fault, the whole lot of em) by dumbing it down and not challenging kids. They caved to paternalism. So since blaming themselves would be an admission of guilt, theyblame the corporations.

I'm sorry that I didn't mention this point in my message, but I believe major things needs to be done in educational system. I believe this thing goes for many countries. It doesn't clearly offer challenges or prepare the children to the aspecst of the global culture and economy, not forgetting the importance of media.

But I'm really sceptical such thing will happen so in the end corporations will have more freedoms than inviduals since people will more push the idea of free trade rather than the importance of such state system that could handle the effects of free market first.

I'm telling you, that line of logic is BUNK

Well, read this message so you might better see where I'm coming from.

If you don't still agree, I'm ready to listen your viewpoint, I'm not one of those that aren't ready to learn something new.