Would Communism Be Better Than Capitalism?

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Only in Capitalism, it belongs to you.

If you want people to keep wealth created by the sweat of their brow, then why do you offer a system built upon the fleecing of wealth from the brow-sweaters? Capitalists do no work, their wealth comes from their private property rights over the machinery the workers actually use to make that wealth in the first place.

What? Americans don't behave that way to other Americans. If you want to look at Americans killing communists, you have to look to Korea or something, you know, someplace unobtrusive.

Sure, but we were speaking about the treatment of fellow countrymen.

 

[kochman]

What? Americans don't behave that way to other Americans. If you want to look at Americans killing communists, you have to look to Korea or something, you know, someplace unobtrusive.

Yes, Americans kill (and die) to give others freedom who cannot fight for it themselves from A-holes who want to control them...
How evil.


And, capitalists do work... they work their minds, which not everyone can do effectively. Most everyone can sweat in a mine...
Hence, a difference value for the different jobs. Supply and demand.
Anyone can wash dishes, not anyone can cook... hence, different pay.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yes, Americans kill (and die) to give others freedom who cannot fight for it themselves from A-holes who want to control them...
How evil.

So you must control them from overseas to keep them from being controlled domestically.

 

[Rashiminos]

What's the point in asking that question, if the asking of it gives us your answer? Try to contribute to the discussion, don't just fart out rhetoric like anybody wants to hear it.

Namely to point out the potential for subjectivity of the original question... (to answer coherently is to propose a definition for 'better').

 

[kochman]

So you must control them from overseas to keep them from being controlled domestically.

Ask the Russians and other Europeans...
We helped them against the Nazis... I guess we were "controlling" them?

 

[Rashiminos]

In capitalism, an arbitrarily defined amount of your work belongs to you. The rest goes to your employer.

How much exactly? Well, as much as he can rip you off legally. At first, working conditions were horrible, and the "sweat of your brow" barely got you anything for a huge toil in mines and factories. Then "socialist" reforms came along and demanded better worker conditions, and hippie BS like that. Now employers can't work you to death as much as they'd want to, and you can live a content livestyle. However, that is still limited by our corporate overlords.

Why should they spread their profits to the people who create the profits for them, the labourers in the factories? Instead, they will try to remit enough of a sum as to keep us quiet and happy. Thanks to the marvels of technological advance, we can get a fairly decent living with only a modest sacrifice from our saints up top.

While I'm sure this is an interesting topic in and of itself, it's not exactly in the spirit of comparing idealized forms of communism versus idealized forms of capitalism, as per the OP.

 

[Defiant47]

While I'm sure this is an interesting topic in and of itself, it's not exactly in the spirit of comparing idealized forms of communism versus idealized forms of capitalism, as per the OP.

I was simply trying to discredit the notion that in capitalism, the amount that you receive for your work is the correct and well-deserved amount, and that "you get to keep what you worked" in some sort of appropriate value.

I mean, if I were to toil in your gold mine for 8 hours, and receive 2 pennies for my efforts, it would be inappropriate to say that "under your system of economy and governance, I get to keep what I worked for... those 2 pennies are mine".

 

[Oruc]

Possibly in the short-term, talking to alot of conspiracy theorists online they think the debt mountain is going to come crashing down in a few years.
If all countries were communist there wouldn't be any debt or the coming economic crash. Freedom would be none non-existent of course.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Ask the Russians and other Europeans...
We helped them against the Nazis... I guess we were "controlling" them?

The example given was Korea, not France.

And Americans die in the service of American interests. For no other reason than that does the USA send men to war. It was American interest to stop the Nazis, it was American interest to destroy Vietnamese and Korean communism, American interest to secure the freedom of Spanish colonies, and American interest to secure fuel resources in Iraq and crush an international terrorist organization in Afghanistan.

 

[Traitorfish]

And, capitalists do work... they work their minds, which not everyone can do effectively. Most everyone can sweat in a mine...
Hence, a difference value for the different jobs. Supply and demand.
Anyone can wash dishes, not anyone can cook... hence, different pay.

Actually, the current division of labour was developed by capitalists for their own ends, with the concious intent of concentrating technical knowledge and control in a managerial stratum. Whether or not the average worker could or could not do their work (and given that, prior to the development of capitalism, most adult men (at least) were independent petty-proprietors, I'm sceptical of your assumptions) was not a consideration in this development.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

And, capitalists do work... they work their minds, which not everyone can do effectively. Most everyone can sweat in a mine...
Hence, a difference value for the different jobs. Supply and demand.
Anyone can wash dishes, not anyone can cook... hence, different pay.

I thought the mantra was that workers' contracts are voluntary, and that they could start their own business with equal success at any time? I wish you paladins would make up your minds: are workers too stupid to run a business, or aren't they?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Yes, Americans kill (and die) to give others freedom who cannot fight for it

It's a little hard to exercise that freedom when you're drenched in more napalm then was dropped on all of Europe, when the American Army has an established policy of shooting refugees heading the wrong way, and the "freedom" they bring is to be dispensed by such kind souls as Yi Seungman.

 

[Defiant47]

And, capitalists do work... they work their minds, which not everyone can do effectively. Most everyone can sweat in a mine...

I never said they don't do work... but is the disparity in their compensation deserved and justified in relation to the compensation of the workers?

Hence, a difference value for the different jobs. Supply and demand.
Anyone can wash dishes, not anyone can cook... hence, different pay.

Why does supply and demand provide the right wages? Just because there are a lot of miners around, that means that any single miner shouldn't be paid as much?

Capitalism allows for large variances in wages based on external factors that have no bearing on the merit of the pay.

Not to mention the capitalist effect. Perhaps miners are worth $40/hr, but if the capitalist can pay them $20/hr, then he will only hire them for that price. Does that mean that the miners actually only deserve $20/hr, and the capitalist deserve the value excess?

 

[Rashiminos]

I was simply trying to discredit the notion that in capitalism, the amount that you receive for your work is the correct and well-deserved amount, and that "you get to keep what you worked" in some sort of appropriate value.

I mean, if I were to toil in your gold mine for 8 hours, and receive 2 pennies for my efforts, it would be inappropriate to say that "under your system of economy and governance, I get to keep what I worked for... those 2 pennies are mine".

I don't think you discredited that notion without the 'aid' of assuming a non-ideal case for capitalism (exploitative contracts). Insomuch as this thread is concerned, you seem to be going off-topic. If we allowed a similar assumption in a communist argument, we'd arrive at different manifestations of the same underlying problem (which is invariant with respect to capitalism and communism).

 

[Defiant47]

I don't think you discredited that notion without the 'aid' of assuming a non-ideal case for capitalism (exploitative contracts). Insomuch as this thread is concerned, you seem to be going off-topic. If we allowed a similar assumption in a communist argument, we'd arrive at different manifestations of the same underlying problem (which is invariant with respect to capitalism and communism).

Non-ideal case? That's practically the mantra of the free market capitalism notion.

Workers are paid based on supply and demand, and entrepreneurs (and corporations) are rewarded for discovering inefficiencies in the market - i.e. pay a miner $20/hr when he's doing work worth $40/hr, and you will be rewarded. Ideally, this will eventually get evened out and the market becomes efficient... except when it doesn't.

Companies continue to turn up profits regardless. The capitalist is putting the workers to work, and gaining all the value excess.

It is inappropriate to say that the workers get to keep the value of the work done. Most of it goes to the capitalist, especially when working for large and profitable corporations (i.e. the most common sort of work).

Before we can move on to the socialist side of things (and later on, communist), we must identify and clearly delineate where capitalism fails, and why it needs to be replaced. Especially since the replacement should address these issues.

 

[Rashiminos]

Non-ideal case? That's practically the mantra of the free market capitalism notion.

Workers are paid based on supply and demand, and entrepreneurs (and corporations) are rewarded for discovering inefficiencies in the market - i.e. pay a miner $20/hr when he's doing work worth $40/hr, and you will be rewarded. Ideally, this will eventually get evened out and the market becomes efficient... except when it doesn't.

Companies continue to turn up profits regardless. The capitalist is putting the workers to work, and gaining all the value excess.

It is inappropriate to say that the workers get to keep the value of the work done. Most of it goes to the capitalist, especially when working for large and profitable corporations (i.e. the most common sort of work).

Before we can move on to the socialist side of things (and later on, communist), we must identify and clearly delineate where capitalism fails, and why it needs to be replaced. Especially since the replacement should address these issues.

Please (re?) read the original post.

 

[Defiant47]

Please (re?) read the original post.

I don't think you discredited that notion without the 'aid' of assuming a non-ideal case for capitalism (exploitative contracts). Insomuch as this thread is concerned, you seem to be going off-topic. If we allowed a similar assumption in a communist argument, we'd arrive at different manifestations of the same underlying problem (which is invariant with respect to capitalism and communism).

And I'm saying that the nature of capitalism will tend towards exploitative contracts. That's the crux of my point.

 

[Rashiminos]

And I'm saying that the nature of capitalism will tend towards exploitative contracts. That's the crux of my point.

Well thanks for admitting to the assumption.

Communism holds back talent from excelling.

QED.

 

[Defiant47]

Well thinks for admitting to the assumption.

It's not an assumption if it's a conclusion. You seem to have placed my point as an "assumption", therefore without basis, therefore without merit. However, it is not an initial assumption, but rather a deliberately thought-out eventual conclusion.

I look forward to a more-high quality response from you in the future.

Communism holds back talent from excelling.

We haven't even gotten to socialism, let alone communism, in this discussion.

 

[Crezth]

Communism holds back talent from excelling.

QED.

Nope. Not QED. Explain how it holds back talent.