Would Communism Be Better Than Capitalism?

[Rhymes]

Oh, so the goalposts have moved. Now it's about whose illusions are better. Give me a sec and I'll think up an even better illusion for you... Oh wait, this is a family-friendly forum.

Not at all. It's about what real life system can work. Real life communism doesn't exist. A system based on the illusion of communism (USSR, Cuba, etc.) can exist, but it's not communism.

Capitalism at it's theorical pure form can't exist. A system based on the illusion of capitalism (like most countries in the world) does exist, but it's not "capitalism" as some might state.

It's about reality, and what can be expected to truly happen in a society model.

 

[aelf]

This deft juggling between reality and illusion, I must admit, is pretty incredible. When we're talking about which illusion is more real, we know we're in somewhere deep.

 

[Rhymes]

This deft juggling between reality and illusion, I must admit, is pretty incredible. When we're talking about which illusion is more real, we know we're in somewhere deep.

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying. It's not deep, it's obvious and clear.

Communist-like society = big fail.
Capitalist-like society = flawed but livable.

Utopic communist society as imagined by marx = impossible.
Capitalistic society working perfectly like Adam smith imagined = impossible.

So out of the four options, capitalit-like system is the more wishable.

The discussion should be focused on how this capitalist system should work, because then you would have a wide range of realistic scenarios.

 

[.Shane.]

Moderator Action: Giving this thread a time out. PCH and Kochman, consider this your chance to END your petty squabbling in this thread and consider an improvement in your posting to it. Anyone interested in seeing this reopened can PM me 5 hours from now and I will reopen it.

 

[.Shane.]

Moderator Action: Re-opened on request. Be good.

 

[Traitorfish]

I mean marxism (and its underlying precepts)... I was hoping no one would dare to bring up anarcho communism and the likes...

Ok, we'll keep it to Marx. (And I'll be frank, any decent theoretical anarchist communism cribs so heavily from Marx as to be to all intents and purposes "post-Marxist", so that doesn't need to be considered separately.) Which Marxism are you referring to, and what do errors do you see in it?

In my opinion it is possible (besides anything is possible when you write an utopia). It is a matter of changing perspectives. For example don't think of it in general but with more focus. Some issues can be faced with a more communist approach and some others with a more capitalist approach, without having to make the whole thing a mix, but a mix de facto.

How can you mix what are, at least as I understand them, the fundamental premises of social organisation?

Not at all. It's about what real life system can work. Real life communism doesn't exist. A system based on the illusion of communism (USSR, Cuba, etc.) can exist, but it's not communism.

What do you mean "doesn't exist"? That it doesn't exist now? That much is obvious. Or that it can't exist? That requires more argumentation than a few references to failed pseudo-socialist regimes. It's a positive claim, so you should be able to produce positive proof.

Capitalism at it's theorical pure form can't exist. A system based on the illusion of capitalism (like most countries in the world) does exist, but it's not "capitalism" as some might state.

It's about reality, and what can be expected to truly happen in a society model.

I would be interested to know what you imagine capitalism's "pure theoretical form" to be. For Marx, at least- and he was the first explicit theorist of capitalism, so I think he is due at least some credit here- capitalism was a concrete reality which he observed, and his theories an abstraction from that concrete reality. "Purity" did not come into it.

 

[Cutlass]

Well, one of the many flaws modern usage of the English language gives rise to is the lack of distinction in most people's use of the terms "capitalism" and "free market economics".

 

[amadeus]

Capitalism has a con of ... creating conflicts for the pursuit of profit and resources.

Conflicts? Do you mean competition for resources or military contractors colluding with the government to engage in increased war spending/external military adventures?

The wealthy pursue their interests at the expense of society, which would be the biggest fault.

Which interests, and how is society harmed?

 

[Tani Coyote]

I would say that we prioritise allowing people to make these choices above whether or not they make them correctly. "Libertarianism", I believe it's called?

Libertarianism is a wonderful ideology, though it works best when people make rational decisions.

People don't, unfortunately. See the criminals. See the fact so many people are saddled with debt. It's not just a problem with the system - it's a problem with the people in it, from top to bottom.

Is it possible to synthesise a commodity-based economy with a non-commodity based economy? That seems a contradiction in terms.

The synthesis would be what American conservatives call "socialism," that is, social democracy/social capitalism. A system where there's a free market overall, but the state engages in regulation and redistribution to ensure the poorest aren't left behind.

At least, that's my idea. Even if the idea of a welfare state and communism aren't synonymous as is commonly alleged, they do have one common trait in mind: no one should be homeless or actually have to fear starvation.

Especially in a nation with as much wealth as the United States!

Conflicts? Do you mean competition for resources or military contractors colluding with the government to engage in increased war spending/external military adventures?

I said that it's what Communists allege. Ask a Communist.

My thoughts would be that industries need raw materials, and raw materials are generally held in the poorer nations. So, those industries in turn would influence their governments to acquire those materials.

Whether one believes that's true or not, is up to them.

Which interests, and how is society harmed?

See the world prior to labor laws.

Unless the capitalist acts 100% out of the goodness of his heart, laissez-faire capitalism will not be good for us. Likewise, unless humans in general act 100% out of the goodness of their hearts, communism won't work either. Really, despite the odds the systems have with eachother, self-absorption is the downfall of both.

 

[amadeus]

See the world prior to labor laws.

Unless the capitalist acts 100% out of the goodness of his heart, laissez-faire capitalism will not be good for us. Likewise, unless humans in general act 100% out of the goodness of their hearts, communism won't work either. Really, despite the odds the systems have with eachother, self-absorption is the downfall of both.

Your belief is wrong, and easily demonstrably so: we have a minimum wage law. The vast majority of wages are above the minimum wage. Legally, a company could pay all of its employees minimum wage, couldn't it? So while it has the legal blessing to do so, it does not. Why don't they pay minimum wage and increase their profits?

 

[Tani Coyote]

Your belief is wrong, and easily demonstrably so: we have a minimum wage law.

I don't believe that was established with the consent of business...

The vast majority of wages are above the minimum wage. Legally, a company could pay all of its employees minimum wage, couldn't it? So while it has the legal blessing to do so, it does not. Why don't they pay minimum wage and increase their profits?

They were probably wise and looked at what Ford did right. By paying his workers well, Ford was able to turn his own labor force into a consumer base. Alongside franchising, it was one of his more brilliant innovations.

I assume most business elites today follow that same example.

Now there's of course the chance they'll use that extra money to pay someone else... but, there's also the chance your rivals' workforce will buy your stuff as well. So it's not entirely the same as giving your workforce your products - you can win or lose from the arrangement.

Furthermore, part of it could also be simple profit concerns. If they don't keep wages high enough, they might lose workers - and therefore productivity, and therefore ability to profit - to opponents.

Giving college grads minimum wages probably won't bode well for a business in the long term, as the rival businesses will suck up all the jobs. While run of the mill laborers are easily canned and replaced(unless there's a union of course), the same cannot be said of educated, specialised ones.

Just as price is a consideration for a consumer, wages are a consideration for laborers.

Indeed, many bottom rung workers are often paid dirt, but the higher positions are paid healthily. Not because of some obscure class system, but because of the simple fact no one wants to go to school for two decades and be paid the same as a person who dropped out.

 

[amadeus]

They were probably wise and looked at what Ford did right. By paying his workers well, Ford was able to turn his own labor force into a consumer base. Alongside franchising, it was one of his more brilliant innovations.

Ford did not create economic law, so it was not an innovation on the part of Ford. Nor was franchising, which existed decades before Ford got into the auto business, but that's a separate point.

What's so strange is that you credit labor law for these improvements, yet when pressed, cite free-market competition for labor as the reason for paying more than a penny a day (or whatever the government decrees.)

 

[aelf]

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying. It's not deep, it's obvious and clear.

Communist-like society = big fail.
Capitalist-like society = flawed but livable.

Utopic communist society as imagined by marx = impossible.
Capitalistic society working perfectly like Adam smith imagined = impossible.

So out of the four options, capitalit-like system is the more wishable.

The discussion should be focused on how this capitalist system should work, because then you would have a wide range of realistic scenarios.

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying. Talking about which illusion is more real makes little sense. Illusion and reality are mutually exclusive. There is no continuum along which illusion can move to become more and more like reality until it is real.

If you're talking about whose theoretical underpinnings are better, that's a different conversation, and one in which you're going to be at a disadvantage by the look of things.

If you're talking about which theory resembles more like extant practices, I'm not sure why that would say much in the grand scheme of things. Practices are defined by the times in which they exist, and the fact that one set of practices currently hold sway doesn't actually say anything about their merits relative to other, especially unrealised, sets of practices.

 

[Crezth]

Your belief is wrong, and easily demonstrably so: we have a minimum wage law. The vast majority of wages are above the minimum wage. Legally, a company could pay all of its employees minimum wage, couldn't it? So while it has the legal blessing to do so, it does not. Why don't they pay minimum wage and increase their profits?

Because a lot of workers are worth more than that, and those workers will leave if they get paid minimum wage. Plus, you can't really live on minimum wage, so there's that.

Minimum wage is meant to protect unskilled workers. If you don't have any skills but are willing to work hard at menial tasks, you should be allowed to at least eat and, if you work a 60-hour week, live in an apartment or something. The reasoning there.

Eliminate a minimum wage and you'd probably see McDonald's, Wal-Mart, et al slash wages and watch the ensuing carnage. You'll usually be able to find someone more desperate than whoever you have now, and if you can find a poor sap willing to work at $5/hr, then you can say good-bye to the single mother you've been employing at $7/hr. It's good business sense to abuse your unskilled employees because, as assets, they don't rank very highly.

Skilled laborers get paid more because they're harder to replace. Supply and demand and all that.

 

[Traitorfish]

Libertarianism is a wonderful ideology, though it works best when people make rational decisions.

People don't, unfortunately. See the criminals. See the fact so many people are saddled with debt. It's not just a problem with the system - it's a problem with the people in it, from top to bottom.

Maybe so, but I don't really see how this contradicts my original comment.

The synthesis would be what American conservatives call "socialism," that is, social democracy/social capitalism. A system where there's a free market overall, but the state engages in regulation and redistribution to ensure the poorest aren't left behind.

At least, that's my idea. Even if the idea of a welfare state and communism aren't synonymous as is commonly alleged, they do have one common trait in mind: no one should be homeless or actually have to fear starvation.

Especially in a nation with as much wealth as the United States!

That's not actually a synthesis of capitalism and communism, though, that's just an economy with a large and active public sector. There's no departure from the basic terms of generalised commodity production.

 

[Tahuti]

Because a lot of workers are worth more than that, and those workers will leave if they get paid minimum wage. Plus, you can't really live on minimum wage, so there's that.

Minimum wage is meant to protect unskilled workers. If you don't have any skills but are willing to work hard at menial tasks, you should be allowed to at least eat and, if you work a 60-hour week, live in an apartment or something. The reasoning there.

Eliminate a minimum wage and you'd probably see McDonald's, Wal-Mart, et al slash wages and watch the ensuing carnage. You'll usually be able to find someone more desperate than whoever you have now, and if you can find a poor sap willing to work at $5/hr, then you can say good-bye to the single mother you've been employing at $7/hr. It's good business sense to abuse your unskilled employees because, as assets, they don't rank very highly.

Skilled laborers get paid more because they're harder to replace. Supply and demand and all that.

Have you ever considered the possibility of minimum wage laws leading to unemployment? Or inflation, either because employers try to compensate for the costs, or because goods become more expensive due to increased demand from minimum wage workers?
While the minimum wage is not a bad idea in itself, you must first figure out whether real wages are increased or not as unemployment and inflation do not exactly increase real wages. If it doesn't increase real wages, then don't do it. Supply and demand and all that.

 

[Crezth]

Have you ever considered the possibility of minimum wage laws leading to unemployment? Or inflation, either because employers try to compensate for the costs, or because goods become more expensive due to increased demand from minimum wage workers?
While the minimum wage is not a bad idea in itself, you must first figure out whether real wages are increased or not as unemployment and inflation do not exactly increase real wages. If it doesn't increase real wages, then don't do it. Supply and demand and all that.

I'm not arguing for it as an absolute, Jesus Christ. Shades of grey, people.

I'm just saying that the minimum wage exists so that people who work pretty damn hard don't have to starve for it. It is highly profitable to let unskilled workers starve if you can just replace them for virtually no cost.

\/\/\/ All this, too.

 

[Cutlass]

Have you ever considered the possibility of minimum wage laws leading to unemployment? Or inflation, either because employers try to compensate for the costs, or because goods become more expensive due to increased demand from minimum wage workers?
While the minimum wage is not a bad idea in itself, you must first figure out whether real wages are increased or not as unemployment and inflation do not exactly increase real wages. If it doesn't increase real wages, then don't do it. Supply and demand and all that.

The people the minimum wage helps the most is not those that earn the minimum, but that much larger number of people who are just a few steps above the minimum. Without the MW, all of the wages of the unskilled and semiskilled would be much lower. And so those people who can be self sufficient a few steps above the MW cannot be if the MW doesn't exist. Upward wage pressure means upward productivity pressure. So no one really loses in the long run. The real costs of production aren't really pushed up.

 

[Traitorfish]

Have you ever considered the possibility of minimum wage laws leading to unemployment?

Out of interest, has this ever actually been proven to occur? I honestly don't understand the logic of how paying less people the same money to do the same work would move a company from unprofitability to profitability, so perhaps if it could be explained in reference to something empirical...?

 

[Tahuti]

The people the minimum wage helps the most is not those that earn the minimum, but that much larger number of people who are just a few steps above the minimum. Without the MW, all of the wages of the unskilled and semiskilled would be much lower. And so those people who can be self sufficient a few steps above the MW cannot be if the MW doesn't exist. Upward wage pressure means upward productivity pressure. So no one really loses in the long run. The real costs of production aren't really pushed up.

If I'm to believe you, the minimum wage leads to inflation in the short-run and has not any long-term effect.

Out of interest, has this ever actually been proven to occur? I honestly don't understand the logic of how paying less people the same money to do the same work would move a company from unprofitability to profitability, so perhaps if it could be explained in reference to something empirical...?

I'll admit that if it happens, this is very rare: Most empirical studies regarding the minimum wage have concluded that cost-push inflation is more likely than unemployment. However, note that when workers are hired based on their cost/profit ratio, and an individual worker is costs more than he produces, well... you'll only have to do the math to figure out how that will turn out.