This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Communism - can it work? A mature discussion on improving the welfare of all.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Morec0
The best way I can think of wording a good explanation of Communism:
It's the perfect system for the perfect world.
I really dislike this sentiment. Because
everything
is a perfect system for a perfect world. Absolute dictatorship would be wonderful if we had a perfect leader who was perfectly moral and never made a mistake and if we had a perfect society for him to lead. And anarchy would be wonderful if every person interacted perfectly morally and equitably. Why does communism get this special treatment as always being heralded as somehow the only system that would work in a perfect world?
Well... I wasn't trying to say those others wouldn't, I was just pointing out the flaw of Communism with said phrasing. You're right, Dictatorships and Anarchy would ALSO work perfectly in a perfect world, but this thread isn't about those - it's about Communism specifically, so I didn't consider them.
Post by
Maurvyn
The best way I can think of wording a good explanation of Communism:
It's the perfect system for the perfect world.
I really dislike this sentiment. Because
everything
is a perfect system for a perfect world. Absolute dictatorship would be wonderful if we had a perfect leader who was perfectly moral and never made a mistake and if we had a perfect society for him to lead. And anarchy would be wonderful if every person interacted perfectly morally and equitably. Why does communism get this special treatment of always being heralded as somehow the only system that would work in a perfect world?
Because Communism baaaad. Russins is commies and they bad.
Grandpa says so, and he's a REAL American.
Sorry, that was petty, but pretty much sums up my frustration with the anti-communist/anti-socialist arguments.
I am in full agreement. with you Hyper.
None of the systems operate in a vacuum, and even a perfectly democratic federation or republic can be an abysmal failure.
And people often forget, or choose to ignore, that China operates as both a communist government AND a free market economy.
And that many of the so-called socialist countries have better run democracies than the U.S., with higher participation rates (many even have compulsory voting).
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Thror
If only it was so easy to improve the "welfare of all" as to philosophize a possibly perfect system. The notion that there is a
system
that may solve the problems of humanity is flawed. The thing is, no matter what system you invent, it is going to be made of
people
and people are inherently flawed. They place their own needs above those of others and they are corruptible. Not all of them are like that, of course, but ultimately, it only takes a bunch of greedy/selfish individuals to corrupt a system. Capitalism, Communism, even Anarchy, they are all hypothetically great ideas, but in practice, they just break.
I have held away from posting in this topic, because I wanted to get more background knowledge first. I have the advantage of living in an actual post-communist country, and I know many people who have experienced both communism and capitalism. I questioned them on their opinions. I was quite surprised to find out that most people answered that neither of the systems is better. There were some nice things in communism, there were also bad things in communism, and the same applies to capitalism.
It looks pretty natural to me that some of you that have never experienced anything but Capitalism naturally turn to other systems as possible "solutions".
Post by
Maurvyn
“People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn't that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people.
As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn't measure up. What would run through the streets soon enough wouldn't be a revolution or a riot. It'd be people who were frightened and panicking. It was what happened when the machinery of city life faltered, the wheels stopped turning and all the little rules broke down. And when that happened, humans were worse than sheep. Sheep just ran; they didn't try to bite the sheep next to them.”
―
Terry Pratchett, Night Watch
One my favorite Pratchett quotes.
Post by
Rankkor
I had tried to stay clear of this thread, mostly because my mom once told me that "if you don't have anything nice to say about something/someone, then its best if you don't say anything at all"
However, having grown and still living, in a capitalist-now-nascent-communist nation, this is pretty much my opinion on the matter:
It looks pretty natural to me that some of you that have never experienced anything but Capitalism naturally turn to other systems as possible "solutions".
In a nutshell.
Hammer = On Head, Thror.
It was that line of thought that brought my country to its current state. Sufficient enough people were on the mindset of "Screw capitalism, our currency sucks, our economy sucks" and moved to a different system. Except that system was even worse than the already horrible previous one, and now the honchos in charge have to resort to propaganda, suppression of free thoughts, and intimidation via horrifying displays of brutality, to avoid people wanting to go back to the previous system.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Hey guys!
I'm still camping in Washington and have limited internet access, but I have a lot to say an not a lot of time to say it!
So I'll just say I do still intend to post a lengthy piece on my thoughts, especially since while I've been camping, the actual main source of media I have been consuming have been books, and nonfiction books on politics, economics, and history, so my own tune has changed a little in the intervening time.
But that will have to be later.
Edit: Got a smidgeon of more time and should source myself. I'm presently reading The Capitalist Papers by Jerry Mander, and am listening to Capital in the Twenty First Century via Audible. I'm also trying to read through Marx's Capital, but that tome is pretty thick and it will take some time.
Post by
Monday
Just a heads up: that book is dull as hell. It doesn't get any better.
Post by
Skreeran
Just a heads up: that book is dull as hell. It doesn't get any better.Which one? I finished The Capitalism Papers, and it's probably one of the most important books I've ever read.
Capital in the Twenty First Century and Marx's Capital are both pretty dry though. Still worth the effort, though, I think, especially if I plan to Major in Economics.
Still posting on a library computer though, so I don't really have the time to say everything I want to about Capitalism. Hopefully I will on Friday, though, if I get to housesit for a friend from Church.
Post by
Monday
Capital was the one I was referring to. I can understand its importance, but I'd rather get the information from an abridgment than read the whole thing.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Presently housesitting, and so have virtually unlimited internet access for the next two weeks.
So let me compose myself, I have a lot to say.
Before I left my house to move a thousand miles across the continent to camp indefinitely, I was primarily anti-Capitalist for ideological reasons. I believed that Capitalism--at least in its present form as corporate, industrial, and global--as inherently exploitative of both the workers and producers who manufacture the myriad goods we depend on, but also to the buyers and consumers of those goods. Marx is an excellent source for my beliefs on this, and it does seem to be the case when one examines it closely.
However, as I've had so much more time to think and read, I've come to the conclusion that Capitalism isn't merely exploitative of the worker, the consumer, and the environment, but in fact actually poisonous to itself. You see, Capitalism, in its current form, is almost entirely dependent on growth. Stocks go up over time, debts are pad over time, more cars are sold, more oil, gas, and coal are taken out of the ground, a new model of iPhone comes out, and so on. The idea is that everything will keep growing forever. The United States will get richer and richer indefinitely forever.
But doesn't it sound so patently foolish when we put it that way? Eventually, there will be no more oil to drill for, or gas, or coal. China, the almost sole exporter of Rare Earth Elements, needed in many electronics, is expected to run out within the next decade. (Incidentally, the World Trade Organization mandated in 2011 that they continue exporting at their current rate despite that fact.) Almost all of the Lithium, also needed in electronics (especially batteries) comes out of Bolivia, who will run out sooner or later. Coltan is another element we've almost used up. Even Iron and Copper, Tin and Aluminum must run out eventually. Clean water, clean air, food, shelter... these too have been commodified and will run out faster than they will be resupplied.
We've nearly reached our carrying capacity as a planet, at least for our current lifestyles, but Capitalism requires--is
legally required
--that we keep growing, that we keep those stock tickers going up and not down. It is for this reason--the absolute willful blindness towards the limits of our growth--that I have come to the conclusion that Capitalism will bring itself down, and us with it, unless it is stopped. We wont ease up against the cliff of sudden resource scarcity, but rather fling ourselves over it at top speed as we keep hoping that there's still more oil or Lithium or fresh water we can get to. And while I'm presently in a very good condition to deal with that misfortune, should it occur, I fear most of the world isn't. When food stops being trucked in because there's no more oil, or when the lights go dark and the internet and phone lines go down because there's no more coal or gas to power our power plants, cities like the one I used to live in will tear themselves apart.
Even alternative energy and locally grown foods will never be enough to support the level of consumption and growth that we're used to. Things will have to change before then, or they will change suddenly when we hit our limits and millions of people will die. The near collapse that happened in 2008 was barely a warning, I think.
Post by
Monday
Benzene, you just can't! An abridgement is another person's selective editing. That's why people have been arguing about the meaning of nuances in Marx and Engels' writing for over a hundred years!
I should say multiple sources. It would be foolish to trust one person's interpretation over many. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to read the whole tome myself, so I went to several people of all political leanings to get their take on it.
Post by
Maurvyn
I can't disagree with Rank and Thror; I personally have not lived in any other system than all out, mostly lassez-faire capitalism, therefore I look to other options to improve on the apparent shortcomings of the system I know.
But just because these other options have been badly implemented in the past does not mean that they can't be implemented better.
Skree pretty much nailed it that the unchecked Capitalist system is toxic to itself, and not simply from overreaching our resources. The fact that Individuals can amass large sums of capital and sequester that capital, and then create increasing wealth from that capital, all without any effort or contributing in any real way to the economic environment, completely undermines the effectiveness of a system that depends on liquidity and fluid capital. If 1% of your population is hoarding 40% of the total wealth, then entire economy has to share what's left. And that number is getting worse. What happens when they own 60%? 80%?
If trillions of dollars is sitting stagnant in a bank, trust fund, or a stock exchange, it isn't really working in the economy. It isn't being used to purchase goods and services, it isn't functioning to support manufacturing, or to do research, or to support education.
It isn't contributing to the overall functioning of the system, and therefore weakens the system.
By hoarding large percentages of available wealth, it forces the system to compensate, either through creation of more capital (which is unsustainable), or stretching even thinner the available resources (which is also unsustainable).
Capitalism doesn't work if the capital isn't working. ( :D I just made that up )
Now I absolutely believe that people need incentive to perform, and that people should be working and contributing, and that those who merit it should be rewarded.
Wanton redistribution of wealth does not solve any problems.
However, I also firmly believe that our current system is broken and thoroughly unsustainable.
Post by
193475
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
If trillions of dollars is sitting stagnant in a bank, trust fund, or a stock exchange, it isn't really working in the economy. It isn't being used to purchase goods and services, it isn't functioning to support manufacturing, or to do research, or to support education.
I think this is the crux of the anti-anti-capitalist argument. When people amass wealth, what makes you think that it's sitting stagnant in a bank, trust fund or stock exchange? What do you think each of those does with the wealth?
Let's go down a case study walk.
When you deposit money into a bank, what happens to that money?
1) The bank sets aside a portion of that to boost its capital reserves - the base amount of money it can draw on in the event of emergency.
2) The bank takes the rest of the money and lends it to other people. Who are they lending to? Businesses, to support the growth of their enterprises. Individuals, to purchase housing and transportation. Governments, who frequently borrow to invest in infrastructure, welfare, and general government spending.
Is this money being used to purchase goods and services?
Yes, as that money is lent on to consumers (both individual and business).
Is this money functioning to support manufacturing?
Indirectly, through the growth of business, and through consumer spending in the manufacturing sector via aforementioned goods and services.
Is this money functioning to do research?
Again, indirectly, yes.
Is this money supporting education?
It's going through the government sector, which will support education. It's going to businesses to support growth, of which learning and development is a part. So the answer there must still yes.
Sure, it's not direct investment into those particular industries. But, that's what the stock exchange is for. If I list a company on the stock exchange, your investment into my company is going directly into funding my business operations, including the production of my goods or services (which may involve manufacturing, if that's your thing), it will be used to drive the purchase of goods and services as part of my supply chain, and is likely to involve further product development (since you're probably not investing in my company for me to sit on my bum and stagnate).
So, I must comprehensively reject your statement and your argument as a whole, because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the financial system operates.
It is for this reason--the absolute willful blindness towards the limits of our growth--that I have come to the conclusion that Capitalism will bring itself down, and us with it, unless it is stopped. We wont ease up against the cliff of sudden resource scarcity, but rather fling ourselves over it at top speed as we keep hoping that there's still more oil or Lithium or fresh water we can get to.
Now, Skree's point on Capitalism requiring constant growth is a much fairer argument. Finite resources, much greed. What is the capitalist argument on this?
1) If a resource is finite, the market will adjust prices so as to restrain the usage of the finite resource.
The reason we use lithium, coal, oil, iron ore and any other natural resource so freely is because it is relatively freely available. We wouldn't use, say, gold in place of copper, because the relative scarcity of gold means that we would run out far too quickly. As a result, the gold price is significantly higher than copper, to reflect that relative scarcity.
2) If the well does dry up, so to speak, it's not going to happen overnight, allowing time for markets to adjust.
A decline in resources of a particular type (oil, fresh water, whatever) is not going to happen immediately. I'm not sure who here eats Nutella, but there's recently been a notice going around that hazelnuts have been in short supply this year due to weather issues, and so the understanding is that Nutella will go up in price over the coming months to compensate for that temporarily. We've had tropical storms hit Australia that have wiped out half of our banana production, sending prices sky high ($18/kilogram or around $8 / lb, compared to it usually being a tenth) for the months that have followed.
This is the sort of timeframe, that we have to adjust our behavioural decisions. We're not going to be at a point where we 'suddenly' run out of fresh water.
We will continue going on adapting to the conditions of the world, whenever it is that we're living, and the market price of our goods and services will act as bellwethers to show us which way the wind is changing.
I'd like to finish off this post by highlighting a two great examples of how capitalism (or the lack thereof) works from my own country, Australia.
A decline in rainfall in Sydney throughout the 90s and 2000s has meant that we had a case where our reservoir of clean water was down to 30% capacity. As water here isn't managed on a price basis (water prices are managed and set by the government, with legislated price increases), we had to have the government start policing when we were allowed to water lawns, wash cars, and start advising us when to flush the toilet, rather than rely on people to look at the price and scarcity of water and think twice about whether it was really worth washing their car, if it meant that the cost of doing so (to themselves personally) reflected the fair cost on society of their behaviour.
In another example, we have had a position in Australia where we introduced a price on carbon; a tax, so to speak. This had the impact of increasing prices on anything that created carbon pollution as a byproduct, and prompted people to act in a way to reduce the flow-on price impact on their own lives, such as reducing the amount of electricity they used.
This is a great example of capitalism in motion. Government set a tax on carbon pollution in excess of a certain limit (which was lower than the current polluting volume). Tax created a price disincentive to pollute. This price disincentive was passed on to consumers of goods and services. The price prompted consumers to change their behaviour and consume less, creating a new market price for what people are willing to pay, and market volume for what people would use.
In a perfect capitalist situation, we'd have a system to let users know when might be a good time of day to use their power. Rather than everyone turning their washing machines on at 9am on a Saturday morning, people can take advantage of the fact that we have excess power wastage at midnight on a Wednesday night, and reduce their drain on society by washing their clothes then instead.
While you could also achieve this through mandating energy usage by rationing, the capitalist system allows people to set their own hurdles for what is more important to them. If they're willing to sacrifice eating out at McDonalds to use more power at home, or if they're happy to take occasional cold showers in order to go see an extra movie each month, or even to save the additional wealth from not spending on their power bill, they're free to make that choice, which they wouldn't be under a communist system.
Over to you guys.
Post by
Maurvyn
Over to you guys.
Excellent piece, Squish. Tank you for taking the time to write that.
I accept your admonishment that my understanding of the overall financial system may be inadequate.
I also accept your premise that money stored in financial institutions can be used in myriad ways that benefit society.
However, I also think it is a fairly large assumption to state that the capital being hoarded by the top % of incomes even indirectly improves the economy in any significant capacity, simply because it ends up in a bank, if it ever ends up in a bank. (Many executive packages include stock options or other marketables that are less taxed than straight capital, if at all, though also potentially less liquid.)
Also, that capital would have ended up in a bank regardless. The bank would still have the money available to it whether that deposit came in from 100 people or from a single person.
The issue is that it is ending up in the banks of the same small group of people more than anyone else, to an alarming degree.
My argument is that it would help the economy more if the same capital was in more accounts in smaller sums, rather than in a few accounts in larger.
While I absolutely agree that Capitalism can and does work, and is far preferable in practice than the way we have seen Communist systems function, I maintain my opinion that the current pace of disparity in income equality is both unhealthy to an economy and ultimately unsustainable.
While things may be working out better down there in Oz,
here is how things are shaping up here in the States.
And this is without socialized healthcare, or the socially supported higher education that other comparable economies get to enjoy the benefits of.
Call me jaded, but I find it highly unlikely that all of those increases in productivity, all of those increased hours, and all of the reductions in benefits are affecting the top 1% equally. And yet they are absolutely reaping the benefits of increased profits.
Actually, surveys have shown that those in the top income brackets actually work fewer hours, and have more vacation and leisure time.
Pure Communism is not the answer, but the current state of capitalism sure isn't working for everybody right now.
Post by
Squishalot
However, I also think it is a fairly large assumption to state that the capital being hoarded by the top % of incomes even indirectly improves the economy in any significant capacity, simply because it ends up in a bank, if it ever ends up in a bank. (Many executive packages include stock options or other marketables that are less taxed than straight capital, if at all, though also potentially less liquid.)
It's not an assumption, it's evidence-based deduction.
What do you think the top 1% do with their earnings? Wherever it goes, it will be invested with the intent to increase in value. It's only going to increase in value if it performs investments that improve the economy. The executive stock options and so forth aren't really considered 'wealth', until they're realised and actually have value as a stock. Most of the wealth owned by the top 1% actually just reflects the value of the businesses that they own (think Microsoft, Google, Trump investments, Berkshire Hathaway, etc.) and these all work to stimulate and improve the economy for their own growth.
The issue is that it is ending up in the banks of the same small group of people more than anyone else, to an alarming degree.
My argument is that it would help the economy more if the same capital was in more accounts in smaller sums, rather than in a few accounts in larger.
So, the economic theory shows that it would increase spending more if the same capital was in more accounts in smaller sums (i.e. wealth was redistributed). That's all well and good, but it's also known that a lack of big investment means that few technical innovations are obtained. There needs to be a mechanism for innovation.
While things may be working out better down there in Oz, here is how things are shaping up here in the States.
People down here are working harder as well. If you think things are bad in the States, consider 25% unemployment in some countries in Europe - not just regions, which may have even higher unemployment, but across the entire country.
I'd also like to see any surveys that show people in top income brackets working less than low income brackets, because all the research that I've seen show a pretty strong correlation between deciles of income and increased working hours / less vacations / less time off work generally.
Post by
Maurvyn
I am not trying to be obtuse, the U.S. still has it pretty bloody good. Many countries would be thrilled to have our problems.
Forgive me, but I still think the view of banks (and by proxy, the top earners) as the investors in innovation and the guardians of economic prosperity is quite a stretch. Banks invest in portfolios, and in companies; not in people. Banks invest in order to reap profit, not to promote innovation.
You are leaning towards a supply side argument, that as long banks and corporations have money available to invest, we all benefit.
But supply side theory is a farce.
If what you say was true, then increases in corporate profits and the huge increases in the income of the 1% over the last 20 years would therefore be increasing bank funds, and we would all be benefiting as the banks invest all of that wealth in companies, innovation and people.
But it hasn't worked out that way at all, the profits of those investments go disproportionately to those who already have the money to reinvest.
Between 1993 and 2010, the incomes of the top 1% have increased over 58%, while the other 99% have only increased 6.4%.
]
If your argument was held out, the rising tide would be lifting all boats.
If you really want to establish and support a 'meritocracy', where people are rewarded according to their work and their contribution, then you have to share that wealth downward.
I shy away from the term "redistribution", because it has nasty "Robin Hood"-esque connotations, but perhaps rebalancing is a better term.
Some inequality is expected, and even necessary to promote growth, but it is reaching a level that is outright absurd. No one who is working a fifty hour week should still be below the poverty level, while the same company is handing out "bonuses" that exceed the GDP of small countries.
Just my opinion.
Now on another front, mechanisms for innovation are changing as well. With crowd-sourcing and the increasing availability of maker spaces, the focus is shifting from large single donors, public grants, or single VC or hedge-style investing, to a multitude of smaller private donors.
With this model going forward, then putting more wealth in the hands of more people absolutely drives more innovation.
But the discussion of whether communism can work or not I think has been pretty beat to do death.
Any system can work, it all depends on what you mean by "work".
Our system as it is "works". But how well it works depends on who you ask.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.