Communism

Post Reply New Topic

I wish you could keep your thoughts organized. One of those sentences goes on for three lines and makes three implicit (and fallacious) points, which I'll tackle separately:

First of all, capitalism doesn't drain resources. Under free market capitalism one doesn't profit unless he makes something scarce, less scarce. It is under socialistic regimes that the capital base has shrank. This is evident in former communist bloc countries where the infrastructure was allowed to erode as there was no incentive nor understanding required to maintain it.

Second of all, the environment in the former Soviet Union was polluted to hell in the name of the people. This should be of no surprise. Every form of production entails some form of pollution. The question of cost and benefit cannot be made without private ownership of property and a market economy. Pollution occurs when those making the decision are furthest removed from the repercussions. The government in this country is the worst polluter of all, and this should be no surprise. It should also be of no surprise that public lands are clear cut (and other forms of mismanagement) as the companies doing so have no long term interest in the value of such land.

Thirdly, people in many African countries are indeed in abject poverty and dying, but this has to do with the political systems which rose after colonialism and nothing to do with the market economies of the west. One prevalent problem is state control over food prices, in other words interventionism. Their poverty doesn't help me one iota. If you think I should die because I can't help people in Africa from killing themselves, or rather simply because of my ideas, I find that repugnant.

As for me being more productive than the average African, yes I am. The reason? I have more capital resources and know how to use them. Many socialists make the error of equating labour with productivity. This is false. In fact labour, like all other factors of production, follows the law of diminishing returns.

As for capitalism being divisive, that's utterly ridiculous. Class warfare is divisive, but capitalism fosters cooperation among people who would in other circumstances have nothing to do with one another. We work and trade with people of different creeds for one another's benefit.



Your caring is besides the point. You would force a system on people whether they wanted to participate or not. This force comes from the end of a gun. Your mentality leads us to what Bush termed "either you're with us or against us". You have Bush's mentality, and I find this irony delicious. I also find your association of capitalism and Bush ironic, but far less delicious and rather crass.

Your belief in communism approaches mysticism. You keep complaining about disparities between rich and poor without considering the affects of redistribution. Your belief in communism is a lot like Bush's belief in democracy, and how he will bend the world to his will in order to accomplish this utopia.



Yes, which is why I object to socialistic policies which create such conditions.

Some resources cant be made again, like our environment for instance. What makes you think i want communism at the end of a gun (unless you mean have an army which im sure you see is needed and commonplace now). Y

es this communism would be forced for a few years once voted in but so is every system or else we would have anarchy. People in Africa are dying in droves out of hunger and disease, quite apart from doing it themselves with warfare.

You are misinterpreting what im typing to suit your agenda. I dont believe in forcing everyone into submission but in this day and age with (man-made) resources aplenty we dont push for a world where everyone has a decent standard of living and we are happy for the fat capatilist greedy pig current society then i have less sympathy than i would for people that actually cared for their fellow human beings.

Even if we had a social capatilism as practised in countries like Norway and Denmark that would be at least a bit more fair but most western countries, particularly the US, are grossly unfair towards the greedy and irresponsible and they think to hell with those without priveledge and position.

I dont need you to tell me to stick to my position. I am very clear in what i believe.

Precisely, Comrade.

Socialism and Communism can work. It just cannot be forced on the people. Virtually anything further "left" than the current status quo is better.

Again, I do wish you would organize your thoughts.

1) If you value the environment (assuming I know what the hell you're referring to), then by all means work with like-minded people to conserve it. Ever heard of the Nature Conservancy?

http://nature.org/

That being said, the ecosystem isn't made of crystal and does repair itself. The better question is how can one work <i>with</i> the ecosystem instead of trying to bend its will. Again, it is the state which causes most of the problems. Consider, for example, the Army Corps of Engineers who try to bend rivers to their will instead of adapting to the natural ecosystem. The Katrina disaster was man-made, as was the Mississippi flood years ago. The state not only enforces a levys-only paradigm with tax money, they also subsidize floodplain development and flood insurance. When people are free to choose how to reap the benefits of the ecology, they would benefit from a different methodology.

It's just another example of capital mismanagement by central planners.

2) All force is at the end of a gun. You even admit as much. If people were left to work with one another without your interference, we would be better off.

3) They are indeed doing it to themselves, and warfare hasn't as much to do with it as price controls. Warfare didn't starve millions in Mao's Communist China either. Welfare kills just as efficiently, if not more so.



1) My agenda is the truth. It is a scientific approach to economics which leads me to discard your ambitions as pure folly. In no way to I misrepresent what you want. You want redistribution of wealth. This can only be accomplished by force.

2) Once you subvert the market economy by redistribution, you destroy the very mechanism responsible for our wealth.

3) Sympathy has nothing to do with it. It is the unintended consequences of socialistic policies which results in poverty and starvation.



Social capitalism is an oxymoron. What you're proposing here is interventionism.

Norway and Denmark are on a road headed for poverty. There is huge institutional unemployment in both countries. Every year, the percentage of those dependent on the state for either employment or welfare grows as does the tax rate. Their economies have become rigid, and flexibility is everything in the ever changing economy.

As for the US system, it can hardly be called capitalist. Populist fascism perhaps.



Where did that comment come from?

I'd rather you consider the positions of others rather than demonstrate your stubbornness.

That is trash. Welfare helps people get out of poverty, not bring them further down into it.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, especially given your avatar.

The comment is coming from your clear will to continue to say i cant organise my thoughts and the fact you would rather deride me as irational and without a clear mind and making out my thoughts are oppresion when i believe it to be the opposite. It is hallf-four in the morning here but i believe my argument to be sound even if i do attack capatilist regimes on many fronts, not just on economices.

You show a complete lack of knowledge of the benefits of social capatilism as practised in countries like Denmark and Norway where unemployment is less than in The US, Britain etc, many sectors are state controlled and NOBODY including those on welfare, is living under the UN poverty line compared to 12% in the US, people are richer on average there and they give much more in aid on average than the "power" economies of the west. In fact literacy rates, life expectancy, and child mortality rates are far less in the likes of Norway than nearly every other western country and particularly the US. I would also like to point out that these countries arent very religious. See how much better the poor can have things and this is still under your beloved capatilism but with a little social responsibility.

Sanity has entered the building! I take it you vote democrat then!?

Your first sentence is a good example of what I'm talking about.

I'm not claiming you are irrational with words, just a little cluttered. Try using more punctuation. A little proofreading may help too.

As for non-economic attacks, there is but one reality. If you're complaining about people starving in Africa, only economics can explain why this occurs because this starvation is a manifestation of low material wealth. If you do not understand economics, you cannot claim to offer solutions. The intentions of policy are irrelevant; only the results are.



First I would like to point out that this collection of thoughts has but ONE PERIOD!

Do you think this is easy to read?

Secondly, Denmark, as I've said before, has huge INSTITUTIONAL unemployment! The official figures only reflect how many people are seeking employment, so it should be no wonder that there is low official unemployment! It should also be of no surprise that the poverty rate is low. None of this bodes well for Denmark's economy. Their productive capacity is dropping and there is little incentive to seek education in productive fields. There is little perceived risk of unemployment or poverty, but Denmark as a whole is slipping.



1) What does religion have to do with it?!

2) It isn't capitalism, it's interventionism, and it isn't sustainable.

There is more than economics involved in campaigning against capatilism, there is also the moral aspect of governmental systems. Obviously all i was trying to point out was things like the environment shouldnt be ruined as a means to wealth but like everything with this capatilist system, economics is the driving force.

You are very clear, yourself. Clearly an ignoramus whose position is one of little moral fibre with a skewed position on what is good for your country and the world as a whole.

You could be a rich person trying to feather your own nest or just someone with some sort of sychophant disorder, or just arguing day is night just to be right and come across as intelligent but whatever your problem, I bid you goodnight sir.

LOL

Who am I? I'm a former socialist who learned of the unintended consequences of the policies I used to promote. Politically I've flipped 180°, but I've always relied on reason to tell me HOW the world works before using my heart to propose changes.

Our differences aren't moral, they're catallactic. You believe your policies will solve poverty, I say they will do the opposite.

PS: Short article on Denmark which explains some of the things I touched on, but in greater detail:

http://www.mises.org/story/905

That article is baised, lets not forget that they still have N/A under the UN poverty line and a higher quality of life than in the US. You seem remarkebly quiet about Norway and Iceland which are practically socialist and have high employment. You can say what you like but i dont see much will from you as far as helping the poor are concerned. Quite the opposite in fact.

I mentioned Denmark because they pride themselves on being the most egalitarian.

As for my will, it's immaterial with respect to this discussion. I'm merely considering the effects of policy, not their intentions.

If I make my arguments on moral grounds, there will be no room for mutual understanding. You think theft is justified, I do not. At least on scientific grounds, we have to ultimately agree. Either theft works, or it doesn't.

Most nordic countries pride themselves in being egalitarian.

So it's simply down to socialists agreeing with theft is it? You were once a thief or their apologist?

The fact is that everyone deserves a reasonable living but capatilists always want more to themselves. You have your snouts in the trough and you want more, how much is enough for you? The real theivery is unchecked capatilism and everyone knows it.

The land and it's resources rightly belong to everyone to devide out equally but the greedy theiving capatilists always want more, by hook or crook (usually by crook) they'll be sure to get it. Never mind the people who work like dogs in sweat factories to actually work hard to give the fat-cats their extra creamy milk, there's plenty more serfs to go round right? Your real god is the almighty dollar, the green goddess, the cash cow is who you really worship.

Last edited by eamonn on 25 Dec 2005, 12:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

PS: Per Henrik Hansen has written two more articles from a Danish perspective which I found interesting:

http://www.mises.org/articles.aspx?author=Hansen

Obviously the effects of how a system works is the bottom line but people usually need to have a will to do something if they are to acheive that goal. If there is no will to end world poverty then it is hardly likely to be eradicated no matter how great you think "free" market capatilism is.