Is Communism Right?...

[Mathilda]

State regulation is an unnecessary burden held over from early industrialization; there is no longer sustainable benefits from having a workforce that is both too poor to afford the goods and so unsatisfied with their positions that productivity falls.

I agree with this but draw a different conclusion from it.
The benefit from decent wages comes to the society as a whole and, not to the individual business owner. Therefore it is in society's interests to keep teh minimum wage level decent enough that people can indeed afford to buy goods with the money they earn.
A single business owner would indeed benefit from paying sub living standard wages.

 

[ComradeDavo]

A single business owner would indeed benefit from paying sub living standard wages.

Theres a strong argument here in the UK that the minimum wage is not high enough to be an actual living wage, and should be increased by a fair bit.

It is increasing from £5.05 to £5.35 later this month, some argue it should be over £6 or even £7 to really reflect what modern living costs.

 

[CartesianFart]

Mininum wage should be balanced out by not only a compromise from the public wage-slaves but also the business owners.Hmmm....I wonder who broker this deal>>>Do i dare say politicians?

 

[warpus]

When the state has access to your wallet, they will have access to the rest of your body as well. It should come to no surprise to you when the so-called "social" freedoms are restricted as well.

The state will always have access to some of your wallet - you do see the need for taxes, don't you?

 

[El_Machinae]

What portion of the population is making minimum wage, and what is that cohort made of?

In Canada, the majority of the people making minimum wage are highschool students, who are being subsidised anyway. Raising the minimum wage would only help a tiny portion of the adult population, a tiny, tiny portion.

 

[ComradeDavo]

The state will always have access to some of your wallet - you do see the need for taxes, don't you?

Sometimes I wonder if rmsharpe thinks we should just build and maintain roads, schools and wildlife reserves ourselves! Not to mention a police force or an army- can't have that without any taxes either!

 

[Mathilda]

Mininum wage should be balanced out by not only a compromise from the public wage-slaves but also the business owners.Hmmm....I wonder who broker this deal>>>Do i dare say politicians?

Must depend on the country, in Finland it's the trade unions negotiatin with the industrial unions..

 

[ComradeDavo]

What portion of the population is making minimum wage, and what is that cohort made of?

In Canada, the majority of the people making minimum wage are highschool students, who are being subsidised anyway. Raising the minimum wage would only help a tiny portion of the adult population, a tiny, tiny portion.

Well the thing is figures showing how many people are on the minkum wage don't take into account the millions who get paid slightly more. I mean I know pelanty of people on say £5.50ish an hour, yet they won't get marked down as minimum wage.

 

[CartesianFart]

Must depend on the country, in Finland it's the trade unions negotiatin with the industrial unions..

Interesting. Of course i've heard of it before,but i have to ask,what does your politicians do over there?It seems these unions do most of the important problems.

 

[Mathilda]

Interesting. Of course i've heard of it before,but i have to ask,what does your politicians do over there?It seems these unions do most of the important problems.

They concern themselves more with laws and taxes, foreign policies and such like.

 

[amadeus]

True Communism as we know it was created by Stalin with no one voting...

Partly true. There were elections under Stalin. Of course, like all Soviet elections, they were meaningless.

Leninism is a Type of Communism where the people could vote from only 1 PARTY... At least they get to vote...

Again, there is no reason to vote when the outcome is predetermined. Do not, however, confuse this with Western democratic traditions where one party may hold certain districts for a number of decades.

Maoism is a mix of Communism and Leninism... Marxism was created by Karl Marx but never actually became a Government... All these Connect to Socialism which was thought of during Platos period... He also thought of some Ideas that related to Communism...<Suspicious>...

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

Okay even though Stalin Killed millions of people here is what good he done...:
Without Communism and Stalin in Russia... The Tsars would have fallen before the Nazis waaaaaaaay to easily....

There was no Stalin in 1812, yet Russia managed to survive. Lenin's blunders and Stalin's purges prevented Russia from being the fortress that it traditionally has been. If not for their incompetence, the ground war in Europe may have been short-lived.

USSR saved Europe from Fascism, Nazis, Genocide, ect... Now... without USSR and Stalin we wouldnt have saved Europe by itself...

False on all counts. The U.S. and aligned countries had the manpower and industrial strength to take down Nazi Germany at any time under any circumstances; the war simply would have been more costly for the West. The benefits, however, would be far superior, in that Europe would be free from fascism as well as communism.

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...

False again. See above.

Okay Vietnam:
Vietnam Conflict happen in 1960s but it wasnt created by NVA but it was USA from the Gulf of Tonkin incident without it, it wouldnt have started the dang Vietnam War!

U.S. military advisors had been sent to Vietnam long before the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the North Vietnamese had long dreamed of to invading and annexing their southern neighbor. Without the NVA and the VC, Vietnam would be free and prosperous.

Okay now the Communist Civil Wars:
Korea, Vietnam, and Cuban Civil war was being pushed by USA by what they think is right... Korea, South Korea Supported by USA... South Vietnam, Supported by USA... Cuban, Supported by USA (They supported the dictator)...Now? USA is pushing the Iraq civil war...

Korea is now the 13th largest economy. There are over a million Vietnamese who have fled to America, and more than a million Cubans have resettled in abroad after fleeing from Castro's red terror.

Now what USA did to prevent Communism:
USA wanted Democracy soooooo bad that they supported Brutal Dictators in many Countries......who wants dictators?!...

You do!

China's Communism:
Wal-mart's CEO exactly said that ...%20 of all of Wal-marts production comes from China... And that is just 1 company in 1 Country... Now China is the Country of the Century... Biggest Population (1.3 Billion people )

I'm failing to see the point here. Are you afraid of China developing?

]Terrorist/Persian Gulf Conflict:
Al-quedea was made to keep Communist forces out of Af. but USA gave it soo much stuff that it became a rag tag fighting force - A advanced fighting force... They pushed back the invasion but then....

Wrong again. The U.S. never directly supplied aid to the "Service Office."

Now a History Lesson : Communism is AGAINST FREE PRESS, RELIGON, MONEY, ANYTHING THAT COULD EMPOWER A CITIZEN!

Thank you for making my point.

.... now when the Fall of the Wall happened... Terroristed powered by Religon, Free Press, Money, ect. ect.... sound Familar?... Other Reasons of PGC... Dictators Supported by USA got TOO POWERFUL AND BSed USA... Sound Familar?....

There was Islamist extremism before the collapse of the Berlin Wall - a piece of concrete didn't matter to them, they had hated the U.S. and Israel long before then.

I'd also like to hear what "dictators" that were friendly to the United States shifted their alignment after developing their countries.

MISC:
Communism make every equal... same income... same production per Citizen... but in Capitolist Countries... Some people live in Ghettos because that was how they was born...

It was as a result of poor choices made by individuals who had decided to have children they cannot support. If they are so mired in poverty, why are they producing so many offspring?

Communism Give people less Freedom because to Reduce Crimes/Corruption... USA?... Too many crimes....

False. I can cite many, many examples of corruption in the Soviet Union, from the Central Committee all the way down to a collective farmer. The fact is that corruption was never reported in the Soviet Union (either for fear of being targeted by the secret police or simply because they too had skeletons to hide) and flourished under the incompetent rule of the CPSU.

Communism Banns all Gay people... USA? Most place with most GAY People (Austrailia almost has the same number of Gay people)... Least gay people?: Vietnam...

What exactly do homosexual tendencies have to do with Marxism, other than having Marxists squash everybody's free will?

I could just keep going on... but I dont think I should...

I think you should.

 

[silver 2039]

It was as a result of poor choices made by individuals who had decided to have children they cannot support. If they are so mired in poverty, why are they producing so many offspring?

To increase labor. More children may equal more mouths to feed, but it also means more kids to send to the fields. Or begging.

 

[C~G]

Interesting. Of course i've heard of it before,but i have to ask,what does your politicians do over there?It seems these unions do most of the important problems.

They concern themselves more with laws and taxes, foreign policies and such like.

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.

I think it the model works very well. There are many problems though. Mainly because in the past certain unions have gained too much power in the system compared to other unions.

Again, the profit motive and the incentive system are enough to provide people with these benefits. State regulation is an unnecessary burden held over from early industrialization; there is no longer sustainable benefits from having a workforce that is both too poor to afford the goods and so unsatisfied with their positions that productivity falls.

I'm sorry but I cannot disagree more.

We’re still in period of industrialization. Our use of energy is very unefficient example. What you are suggesting IMHO would create same kind of catastrophe currently as communism did.

Either you let the state create and monitor regulations or you let the workforce to create unions, now which one would you prefer?
I personally believe both of them are needed.

If the state doesn't hold the line considering these the corporations will make havoc considering the possible social liberties of people, very similar to the ones in communism by the state.

That's why such things as minimum wage, sick pay and also health care and education should be considered state run business since they contain "soft values" such as quality of human life into which free market cannot valuate, or it can as long as it isn't your life or your family members life in question. Also I believe these means help the economy in the long run as well which escapes the sight of corporations which often don't necessarily look further than in short term. State have to do look into the future and look the whole big picture compared to the narrow view of corporation.

Even though I favor free market, the market doesn't contain functions that look into ethical questions. And no, losing reputation isn't enough since people are desperate to use the services of corporations and also work for them and unless there's some kind of failsafe system it will mean complete totalitarian state run this time by the corps.

Of course, you can disagree with this all, but I would really know why since I don't trust human nature at all regarding that the corporations working in free market could balance these factors without helping (or pushing) hand.

Also I believe strongly that these regulations in fact help the society to balance the society both economically and sociologically. Unfortunately some believers of the free market and libertarians seem to read their "bible" too literally forgetting that the practice is different than the theory.

In other words they start to believe into blindly to the power of free market. In my theory it could only work if you would be ready to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of the market since in the end it would have to start valuate the most essential things to us all, the price of human flesh and soul.

 

[amadeus]

Thats only because in the past governments have introduced these regulatons and so forth so it has become the norm (and now legal requirement) to expect companies to give sick pay and holiday.

It would have been a natural consequence of development. People have more leisure time today than they did 50 years ago, yet that does not correspond to legislation put into place.

It benifits them because having a minimum wage means wages rise in general, especially in areas where companies compete to hire the best workers.

Wages "rise" at the expense of having the goods on the shelf cost more, effectively lowering the wages of the people that shop there. The money to pay the employees comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is the customers' pockets.

Also there alot of people (especially shop workers) whoa r eon minimum wage or only earn 20-30p more an hour, so a minimum wage does drive average earnings up.

If you can find a way tell me how rising labor costs drive the profitability of a business up, you're the best economist the world has ever known.

Soemtimes I have to wonder if you really understand how desperate people get for work. People don't just automatically get work, there aren't jbs everywhere.

There are, but minimum wage laws (among others) stand in the way of this. Minimum wage legislation contracts the availible supply of funds for hiring new labor, and thus fewer people are demanded by the company.

You trust companies too much.

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

Look at your country. Look at mine. Mine has better healthcare. Yours is only good for the well off.

By what standards?

Why? tahts just a flippant statement with no real substance to it. I don't see how paying tax to fund hospitals and schools means I shouldn't be allowed to buy weed form a shop.

Shouldn't isn't the right word to use, because "should" and "should not" mean very little when it comes to the state and restricting your freedom of choice.

 

[amadeus]

To increase labor. More children may equal more mouths to feed, but it also means more kids to send to the fields. Or begging.

This may be the case of poorer countries, but there are very few fields left for tilling in downtown Detroit.

 

[JerichoHill]

When I argue for untrammeled freedom, this is what I mean.

People should be free socially, so long as their actions do not cause undue harm on others.

People should be free economically, so long as their actions do not cause undue harm on others.

Sadly, one only realizes over time and with experience. But because we have an innate nature to want to control our lives, we will always trammel over one or the other.

 

[C~G]

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.

 

[MamboJoel]

@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.
Also, my main stupefaction comes from the total lack of balance in any argument, makes the debate entertaining at the start but quite boring at the end of the day.

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

 

[amadeus]

I'm sorry but I cannot disagree more.

We’re still in period of industrialization. Our use of energy is very unefficient example. What you are suggesting IMHO would create same kind of catastrophe currently as communism did.

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

Either you let the state create and monitor regulations or you let the workforce to create unions, now which one would you prefer?
I personally believe both of them are needed.

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.

If the state doesn't hold the line considering these the corporations will make havoc considering the possible social liberties of people, very similar to the ones in communism by the state.

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

That's why such things as minimum wage, sick pay and also health care and education should be considered state run business since they contain "soft values" such as quality of human life into which free market cannot valuate, or it can as long as it isn't your life or your family members life in question.

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.

Also I believe these means help the economy in the long run as well which escapes the sight of corporations which often don't necessarily look further than in short term. State have to do look into the future and look the whole big picture compared to the narrow view of corporation.

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?

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.

Even though I favor free market, the market doesn't contain functions that look into ethical questions.

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?

And no, losing reputation isn't enough since people are desperate to use the services of corporations and also work for them and unless there's some kind of failsafe system it will mean complete totalitarian state run this time by the corps.

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.

Of course, you can disagree with this all, but I would really know why since I don't trust human nature at all regarding that the corporations working in free market could balance these factors without helping (or pushing) hand.

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.

Also I believe strongly that these regulations in fact help the society to balance the society both economically and sociologically. Unfortunately some believers of the free market and libertarians seem to read their "bible" too literally forgetting that the practice is different than the theory.

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

In other words they start to believe into blindly to the power of free market. In my theory it could only work if you would be ready to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of the market since in the end it would have to start valuate the most essential things to us all, the price of human flesh and soul.

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

 

[amadeus]

The state will always have access to some of your wallet - you do see the need for taxes, don't you?

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