The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Why communism will work, and capitalism won’t.

This post has 344 Replies | 25 Followers

Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 424
Points 7,360

Markus:

Under communism they would not have to send their children to work in these treacherous conditions. Conditions would be better, and they would be provided for if need be.

How so? Can you please explain the way in which conditions will be made better. But this time, don't forget about the long-term consequences of destroying incentives to produce wealth by stealing from entrepreneurs, or the inability of a system with no (or disrupted) price signals to anticipate consumer demand.

If you try to trick the market, it will get its revenge.

Solreyus

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 53
Points 2,020

It's quite silly to critize a state capitalist society and call it communist. The Soviet Union had property rights, a market economy and a state. To call it communist is just plain wrong. Communism is a stateless and classless society. The Soviet Union had a state, that state was also a ruling social class.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 168
Points 2,295

You can call it what you want, but you dont "need" to do anything. Life is a want, a mutually shared want by all things living, but a want nonetheless. People work to make a profit and fulfil their wants. "Need" is just  a buzzword you use to intimidate people just like "capitalist", "exploitation", "slavery", etc.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 15
Points 895
Markus replied on Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:11 AM

Anarchist Cain:
An individual cannot use subsistence farming? There is a great deal of that in third world countries. So your conception that 'wage labor' is necessary for survivial is a falsehood.
What about those who have no access to farming. Those living in poverty in cities etc?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 273
Points 4,495

Markus:
They are not working to make a profit, they are working to survive. They HAVE to work in order to pay for food and water.

Psst...that's called an equivocation. See this here-> http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=profit     S: (v) profit, gain, benefit (derive a benefit from) "She profited from his vast experience" . Are not workers by exchanging their labor for food/water profiting? Yes. By engaging in this trade it proves that they value food/water subjectively more than their labor. Therefore they are profiting

Markus:

Nerditarian:
Liberalized China--> Development, wealth, automobiles, increased standards of living.

Are you sure the vast majority of Chinese are benefiting from capitalism? Only the wealthy capitalists have benefitted. Any sources for this OVERALL increased standard of living?

.

Do you have any sources? Mine's called logic. If Chinese people choose to labor in factories instead of farming like they did under communism it shows they prefer factories to farms.  They could have choosen to stay starving on their farms when the capitalists came to town but they flocked to the factory. Why?

Here's a better example of what's happened to the Vietnamese since liberalization: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQeASkGRiW0.

Markus:

Under communism they would not have to send their children to work in these treacherous conditions. Conditions would be better, and they would be provided for if need be.

 Why would people be wealthier? Because Dear Leader Markus declares it so? Or will you simply send those who think they are worse off to the gulag or the concentration camp Marky Mark?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 424
Points 7,360

Truthisnonexistent:

The Soviet Union had a state, that state was also a ruling social class.

This is true, but weren't the Platonic roots of Marxism intent on having a managerial class (equivalent to Plato's property-less Guardians). Hence the insane eugenics programmes to try to breed an elite, no?

I am aware that Marx claimed to owe a debt of gratitude to Aristotle, not Plato, but some forms of Socialism can be traced back to Plato.

If you try to trick the market, it will get its revenge.

Solreyus

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 273
Points 4,495

Markus:

Anarchist Cain:
An individual cannot use subsistence farming? There is a great deal of that in third world countries. So your conception that 'wage labor' is necessary for survivial is a falsehood.
What about those who have no access to farming. Those living in poverty in cities etc?

 Why pray tell did people emigrate to the cities FROM the countryside whenever capitalist factories have arisen throughout history?

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 15
Points 895
Markus replied on Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:13 AM

Taras Smereka:
You can call it what you want, but you dont "need" to do anything. Life is a want, a mutually shared want by all things living, but a want nonetheless. People work to make a profit and fulfil their wants. "Need" is just  a buzzword you use to intimidate people just like "capitalist", "exploitation", "slavery", etc.

If you don't drink and eat enough, you are going to die. I would call that a "need", not a "want".

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 273
Points 4,495

Markus:

Taras Smereka:
You can call it what you want, but you dont "need" to do anything. Life is a want, a mutually shared want by all things living, but a want nonetheless. People work to make a profit and fulfil their wants. "Need" is just  a buzzword you use to intimidate people just like "capitalist", "exploitation", "slavery", etc.

If you don't drink and eat enough, you are going to die. I would call that a "need", not a "want".

 To pose the question again: And if people choose to move to cities to work in capitalist factoires in order to better provide for both needs and/or wants, how are they being exploited? Aren't they gaining?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 424
Points 7,360

Markus:

If you don't drink and eat enough, you are going to die. I would call that a "need", not a "want".

It is predicated on the want to live. No suicidal person will claim they need food and water.

If you try to trick the market, it will get its revenge.

Solreyus

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 168
Points 2,295

But people want to live, or do not want to live. Thats why some people kill themselves, they no longer prefer life. Life itself is a want, and saying "I need water and food to fulfil my want to live" doesnt make it a need, its still a want, though a want that everyone alive has..

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,635
Points 64,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator

Higher standard of living of course.

'the American is the most unphilosophical of beings. The rationalization of conduct in general is most repugnant to him; he prefers to emotionalize it.' - Albert J Nock

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 168
Points 2,295

To put it another way, If I want to get a date, I need to put on some nice clothes and deodorant. But thats just an extension of a want.

 

Everything is subjective.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 84
Points 1,845

Nerditarian:
Fine Lord Shore-Tilly. I'll stick to the other things I hate about Marx and won't explore new avenues of things to hate about that hairy squirrelly evil man.

 

You can 'explore' what you like, but if they're patently false then you should be ready to be called on it.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 15
Points 895
Markus replied on Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:20 AM

Nerditarian:
Do you have any sources? Mine's called logic. If Chinese people choose to labor in factories instead of farming like they did under communism it shows they prefer factories to farms.  They could have choosen to stay starving on their farms when the capitalists came to town but they flocked to the factory. Why?

That is a fair point.

But what we had in China wasn't communism; Communists killing fellow workers and communists is NOT communism. We had some warped version of communism that descended into a totalitarian state due to outside pressures (the capitalist countries). Therefore, workers may be choosing to work in factories because it was better than starving on a farm, but that still doesn’t negate the fact that they are working for pittance in order to have a slightly better quality of live when the vast majority of the wealth is created for the factory owners (capitalists).

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 273
Points 4,495

Lord Shore-Twilly:
You can 'explore' what you like, but if they're patently false then you should be ready to be called on it.

Hey man, we're on the same side. I took an untrustworthy source too seriously.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 168
Points 2,295

Yeah its the capitalists fault the government is corrupt. Those greedy fuckers lending out money at interest causes all the worlds problems. Nevermind that child abuse, violence, and fraud all existed and were commonplace before money was even invented.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 15
Points 895
Markus replied on Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:25 AM

This slight lack of freedom in Cuba has everything to do with the US trade embargo which has prevented Cuba from prospering yet further. Any deficiencies in freedom in Cuba are to do with the fact it has a huge capitalist country on it's door step that is doing it's best to bring down communism. Not to mention other western capitalist countries against Cuba.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 157
Points 2,625

Nerditarian:


Markus, please atleast read on these subjects-they were all created to destroy the scientific case for forms of socialism/communism. Now, I do agree that the form of communism found in Russia/China was warped from its original foundations, but nonetheless blaming it on capitalists would only make it seem that a communist system would be inherently unstable; obviously that is not a good thing for someone who believes in the communist/socialist ideal.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,381
Points 67,025
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

I wouldn't call paying for food and water in order to survive a "profit". I'd call it slavery to the capitalist system.

Or, you know, a natural necessity of life. Oh noes, we're enslaved to nature, cry me a goddamn river. Crying

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,381
Points 67,025
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

If you don't drink and eat enough, you are going to die. I would call that a "need", not a "want".

Or, a highly ranked want, as opposed to a "need". GG.

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 273
Points 4,495

Markus:

Nerditarian:
Do you have any sources? Mine's called logic. If Chinese people choose to labor in factories instead of farming like they did under communism it shows they prefer factories to farms.  They could have choosen to stay starving on their farms when the capitalists came to town but they flocked to the factory. Why?

That is a fair point.

But what we had in China wasn't communism; Communists killing fellow workers and communists is NOT communism. We had some warped version of communism that descended into a totalitarian state due to outside pressures (the capitalist countries). Therefore, workers may be choosing to work in factories because it was better than starving on a farm, but that still doesn’t negate the fact that they are working for pittance in order to have a slightly better quality of live when the vast majority of the wealth is created for the factory owners (capitalists).

 Yes. Chinese Communism did meet the standards of crude communism. Deal with it. It was a dictatorship of the proletariat. There was supposed to be a totalitarian State. It was a DICTATORSHIP of the proletariatt, not a lovefest of the proletariat. And someone who just lavished praise on the Nazis and Soviet Communists and Castro's Cuba for christsake cannot be expected to be taken seriously when decrying any totalitarianism ever.  Perhaps before you read that other stuff you should also google Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction? Psst...there are no laissez-faire capitalist countries in the world at the moment! However, there was a real Crude Communism something Marxoids support. and in this Crude Communism central planning of agriculture via the Great Leap Forward [sic] and other programs resulted in the average Chinese peasant starving on the farm. and when capitalist entrepreneurs were allowed to come in and offer them work they ran to the factories. Now there is a Chinese middle class! Automobiles in the streets! Thank Capitalism for this improvement in the life of everyday Chinese. While it still has work to do, it is freedom that has aided the Chinese thus far. If only, they would fully embrace capitalism they would be a pinacle of wealth and civilization from now until forever!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 424
Points 7,360

Markus:

But what we had in China wasn't communism; Communists killing fellow workers and communists is NOT communism. We had some warped version of communism that descended into a totalitarian state due to outside pressures (the capitalist countries). Therefore, workers may be choosing to work in factories because it was better than starving on a farm, but that still doesn’t negate the fact that they are working for pittance in order to have a slightly better quality of live when the vast majority of the wealth is created for the factory owners (capitalists).

 

And here, good sir, we arrive at the real problem. Your theory doesn't take into account human nature. Any theory that fails to take this into account will simply end up with cloudy fantasies, and always wonder looking back, "why did that not work?"

Hence the eugenics movement's popularity with Socialists.

If you try to trick the market, it will get its revenge.

Solreyus

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 84
Points 1,845

Jon Irenicus:

I wouldn't call paying for food and water in order to survive a "profit". I'd call it slavery to the capitalist system.

Or, you know, a natural necessity of life. Oh noes, we're enslaved to nature, cry me a goddamn river. Crying

When did 'paying' become 'natural', i.e. part of 'nature'? I wasn't aware that non-sentient life forms had established trade or currency.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 140
Points 1,960

Markus:

This slight lack of freedom in Cuba has everything to do with the US trade embargo which has prevented Cuba from prospering yet further. Any deficiencies in freedom in Cuba are to do with the fact it has a huge capitalist country on it's door step that is doing it's best to bring down communism. Not to mention other western capitalist countries against Cuba.

What does a trade embargo have to do with censorship of books? I mean, books are just cute little paper things that contain squiggly writing - hardly a battalion of tanks which will smash your Communist society, no?

There is simply no justification for censorship. Unless your pet ideology is fatally flawed that is.

 

Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,381
Points 67,025
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Sentient life forms are also part of nature, FYI. "Paying" is just what goes into getting others to willingly surrender their resources. Nothing will produce itself and no one is forced to merely surrender their goods just because someone else has a "need", nor does having to offer something in exchange make it "slavery".

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 273
Points 4,495

Markus:

This slight lack of freedom in Cuba has everything

LMFAO Big Smile   Slight???

Markus:
to do with the US trade embargo which has prevented Cuba from prospering yet further.
I believe in absolute capitalism, i.e absolute free trade. I don't support any embargos. But that shows you don't understand what free-market capitalists beleive. If limiting trade prevents prospertiy, shouldn't we allow and encourage trade? What better way to do this than to have a completely free market? What is government intervention and central planning of an economy but servere restriction of trade a la an interpersonal trade embargo so to speak? Thus you again should look up Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction.

Any deficiencies in freedom in Cuba are to do with the fact it has a huge capitalist country on it's door step that is doing it's best to bring down communism. Not to mention other western capitalist countries against Cuba.

A. The Americkan Empire & it's western European satellites is not capitalist it's corporatist. Learn the difference, please.

B.  How is it America's fault that Castro & Co. are not friends of civil liberties? You make no sense. Don't drink the bong water.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 15
Points 895
Markus replied on Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:43 AM

I must say, I didn't agree with everything in that inital post. It was actually posted on this forum http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/philosopher/499847-capitalism-vs-communism.html

Strangely enough, no one has actually comprehensively refuted it on there. Is anyone going to do it now?

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 15
Points 895
Markus replied on Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:45 AM

Nerditarian:

Any deficiencies in freedom in Cuba are to do with the fact it has a huge capitalist country on it's door step that is doing it's best to bring down communism. Not to mention other western capitalist countries against Cuba.

A. The Americkan Empire & it's western European satellites is not capitalist it's corporatist. Learn the difference, please.

B.  How is it America's fault that Castro & Co. are not friends of civil liberties? You make no sense. Don't drink the bong water.

George Galloway blamed the US for any deficiencies in Cuban civil liberties in an interview on BBC Newsnight, I believe.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 273
Points 4,495

Markus:

Nerditarian:

Any deficiencies in freedom in Cuba are to do with the fact it has a huge capitalist country on it's door step that is doing it's best to bring down communism. Not to mention other western capitalist countries against Cuba.

A. The Americkan Empire & it's western European satellites is not capitalist it's corporatist. Learn the difference, please.

B.  How is it America's fault that Castro & Co. are not friends of civil liberties? You make no sense. Don't drink the bong water.

George Galloway blamed the US for any deficiencies in Cuban civil liberties in an interview on BBC Newsnight, I believe.

 Why should I take whatever George Galloway said as gospel if it makes no sense?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 273
Points 4,495

Markus:

Strangely enough, no one has actually comprehensively refuted it on there. Is anyone going to do it now?

See this post: http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/8834/226975.aspx#226975

 If you disagree with that this is sufficient then surely it in combination with our expositions of the subjective theory of value, comparitive advantage and socialist calculation you can understant why we disagree with the entirety of the post.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,886
Points 28,880
Moderator
MVP
Nitroadict replied on Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:55 AM

How does the OP avoid the naturalistic fallacy when declaring the the "argument always fails to realize the true biological basis for socialism"?

How does the OP reconcile that the revision to the ideology of communism has essentially required to differentiate itself from failed executions in order to stay a relevant ideology?

How is using coercion to reduce or end further coercion not a blatant contradiction that essentially makes the communist no different from the statist, & possibly explains why the famous executions (*rimshot *) of socalism / communism have resulted in just another execution of Statism?

Yet, just like communism, capitalism has always managed to only exist (in recent history) under the state, so while you make excuses for your ideology not being perfectly implented, how can you not make the same excuse for capitalism?  There is even contradiction in your objections.   

I thought communists wanted to eliminate the state: why does every "almost sucessful" communist further the state instead? 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 104
Points 1,885
BobT replied on Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:56 AM

Fidel: Sorry guys, the US wont trade with us (most other countries will, just not the US), so I'm going to have to violate your freedom of speech, ideas, etc. But its their fault!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 84
Points 1,845

Jon Irenicus:
Sentient life forms are also part of nature, FYI.

 

Yes, but their constructions presumably are not. Development of trade and currency was no more 'natural' than the computer upon which I am typing out this message. Both are the products of intelligence.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,381
Points 67,025
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Only if you have some fetishised usage of the word. Trade, exchange &c. are very much natural, since they're expessions of the creature's that is engaging in them nature, and also on another level because it's even observed in primates. Then again I don't consider computers "unnatural" either, as they're just tools.

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,734
Points 52,820
wilderness replied on Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:02 PM

Lord Shore-Twilly:

Jon Irenicus:
Sentient life forms are also part of nature, FYI.

Yes, but their constructions presumably are not. Development of trade and currency was no more 'natural' than the computer upon which I am typing out this message. Both are the products of intelligence.

Computers are killing us!  They are unnatural!!!  Ahh, run!Stick out tongue

No free market with blind headbutting as thine and mine goes unseen, you know, current events. But if there's an increased implementation of property rights so economics justly happens with this scarcity.. then yes.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 53
Points 2,020

Fred Furash:

Truthisnonexistent:

The Soviet Union had a state, that state was also a ruling social class.

This is true, but weren't the Platonic roots of Marxism intent on having a managerial class (equivalent to Plato's property-less Guardians). Hence the insane eugenics programmes to try to breed an elite, no?

I am aware that Marx claimed to owe a debt of gratitude to Aristotle, not Plato, but some forms of Socialism can be traced back to Plato.

Communism's aim is to eliminate social classes. A managerial class would be a hierarchical social class which communism strongly opposes. It would be helpful if you could post some resources that portray these Platonic roots of Marxism that imply a managerial class.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 15
Points 895
Markus replied on Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:05 PM

Nerditarian:

Markus:

Nerditarian:

Any deficiencies in freedom in Cuba are to do with the fact it has a huge capitalist country on it's door step that is doing it's best to bring down communism. Not to mention other western capitalist countries against Cuba.

A. The Americkan Empire & it's western European satellites is not capitalist it's corporatist. Learn the difference, please.

B.  How is it America's fault that Castro & Co. are not friends of civil liberties? You make no sense. Don't drink the bong water.

George Galloway blamed the US for any deficiencies in Cuban civil liberties in an interview on BBC Newsnight, I believe.

 Why should I take whatever George Galloway said as gospel if it makes no sense?

 

This is the video in which George Galloway explains how the lack of democracy in Cuba is due to the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0TsQg-Qz2M&feature=related

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 273
Points 4,495

Markus:

Nerditarian:

Markus:

Nerditarian:

Any deficiencies in freedom in Cuba are to do with the fact it has a huge capitalist country on it's door step that is doing it's best to bring down communism. Not to mention other western capitalist countries against Cuba.

A. The Americkan Empire & it's western European satellites is not capitalist it's corporatist. Learn the difference, please.

B.  How is it America's fault that Castro & Co. are not friends of civil liberties? You make no sense. Don't drink the bong water.

George Galloway blamed the US for any deficiencies in Cuban civil liberties in an interview on BBC Newsnight, I believe.

 Why should I take whatever George Galloway said as gospel if it makes no sense?

 

This is the video in which George Galloway explains how the lack of democracy in Cuba is due to the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0TsQg-Qz2M&feature=related

 He assumes that rights are curtailed in a war justly and necessarily. He assumes this should be done. That's not true. Rights are inviolable and natural. Furthermore democracy is also evil. If America goes to war with Iraq it's not Iraq's fault America installs the patriot act. It wasn't Japan's fault the US created internment camps for Japanese-Americans. Furthermore, as socialists your opposed to freedom of trade between individuals so you really have no moral or economic leg to stand on! Silly Socialists!Big Smile

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 168
Points 2,295

He rationalizes the governments action, he doesnt provide justification. "Rights are always curtailed in times of war". That isnt a rational justification, its just a red herring to distract people from the real issues, like why Cuba went from being more wealthy than most of europe to being a third world country, and why the average citizen is being repressed.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 9 (345 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | RSS

Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119

contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises

Mises.org sitemap