Capitalism vs. Communism

[Sibirsky]

How do you "encourage" it?

Larger grants, less tax on those kinds of businesses, the general stuff to do to help encourage the creation of businesses, but to a bigger extent on that kind.
Another way to do it, for example, there is a large lack of jobs in a certain area; take a look at what that area needs (apart from jobs), have the state (on the local level) spend money to set up a business to meet that need, and then transfer control of it over to the workers/managers.

And it seizes to be a free market. Now you're planning shit.

Planned economies are less efficient.

[The Merchant Republics]

And neither would I.

Why is it that people assume that a free market necessitates abusive employment of child labour in coal mines?

For one this ought to be illegal simply for the use of the word abusive, and secondly, can you imagine most parents in the Western World would be ok with letting their children work in a coal mine? And finally, do we really need children to work in our coal mines anymore? Not really, and by not really I mean, hell no we don't. Mining nowadays is mostly automated, kids are useless at operating complex modern mining machinery.

If I said that we should have a Mercantilist economy, would you think that I want to make all cargo ships work by sail, simply because the last time we had a mercantilist economy, ships were all sail powered?

Socialism applied in the 19th century probably would not have avoided employing child labour, (if they even recognized it, the very conception of childhood as a time for education and separate from Adulthood is borne out of the Industrial Revolution), the simple fact is that if the children didn't work, they would have starved and no body really thought of children as anything but small, easily trained adults at the time.

Also The terms Capitalism and Communism differ from state to state. There's no guaranteed form of either to suit every countries situations. It's why every country must adopt a broader spectrum of economic policy rather than have one form and one form only. It doesnt matter which form is implemented there are abuses as there are with every system.

I agree which is why I believe that freedom should be the most important rule, since people tend to conform their economy to their society as much as vice-versa, the most important thing is that there state, if it must exist at all be kept from interfering with the natural inclinations of their citizenry.

I believe that natural inclination would be capitalism, or at least conform to market systems.

[Keronians]

Larger grants, less tax on those kinds of businesses, the general stuff to do to help encourage the creation of businesses, but to a bigger extent on that kind.
Another way to do it, for example, there is a large lack of jobs in a certain area; take a look at what that area needs (apart from jobs), have the state (on the local level) spend money to set up a business to meet that need, and then transfer control of it over to the workers/managers.

So, level the playing field by manipulating the standards of the market? If a market will allow a certain business to develop, true stability arises when that business arises from the market, not government meddling with the market through grants and subsidies.

I agree with this to an extent.

The government should "meddle" with the market when it comes to small businesses.

Low-interest loans and subsidies allow smaller firms to succeed.

[Sanguinthium]

1. china is socialist according to the government. and, they abuse their people; if they are capitalist, that ought to be impossible.

Governments lie. And, governments treatment of it's people has nothing to do with the economic system

Not rocket science.

2. i never said they were; i used them as an example. how about the guns, nukes, computers, airplanes?

Useless to the typical person.

3. no, you are wrong.

Prove it,

4. the soviet union was safe after roughly 1956.

Not if you happened to disagree with the government.

5. Gorby was a traitor to the cause.

Fuck your cause. The cause failed. Gorby knew it, and reacted. By increasing freedom.

6. poverty in the west is driving a shit car? really? pathetic. you have never experienced poverty.

Yes, I have. Poverty in the US, is income below ~ $11,000 person. That is 2 times higher than the average income in China. 3 times higher than the average income in India.

Which have been growing rapidly, after they decided to move towards markets.

(Image)

THAT is poverty; that picture is of an AMERICAN.

Yes. And it's sad. But it's not in any way, shape or form representative of the poor. Less than 0.2% of the poor, are homeless.

here is probably where you live:
(Image)

This is irrelevant.

you have never had to worry about when you would eat, if your sister will be able to eat; you got food after waiting for three hours. get over yourself- this man gets food only if enough people care enough to spare a fucking dollar.

He has options. And people do care. And do give him money. He can go to a shelter. He can get a basic education, and get an entry level job, and go from there. Many people have gone on to do great things, after being homeless.

try living in poverty for a month, like i lived for almost my entire life, before you even begin to think what poverty is.

A. Spare the fucking sob story.
B. I lived in poverty for more than a decade, in your paradise of the USSR.

1. than how do you know that yours doesn't about what happened before you were born?

2. computers are useless? then get off yours. airplanes are useless? remind me what the quickest transport anywhere is? (HINT: its not teleportation, and it takes jet fuel.) not rocket science.

3. because you are.

4. then dont bitch near government officials and rats.

5. the cause didn't fail, the revolution was betrayed. by Gorbachev. fuck the profligates' system of oppression.

6. try 1%, thats 1/100 americans.

7. its entirely relevent; it shows you have no damn idea what your talking about; plus, ignoring that 67% of the rich inherited their wealth..

8.no, you enjoyed middle class life, courtesy of the government you despise.

I would rather not return to the times of Industrial Britain, where small children worked in the mines, and the adult miners could abuse the children because the more coal they mined, the more money they got.

Who says that abuse is the result of deregulation?

logic. children will work cheaply; children dont report stuff. ergo, they will be ideal workers.

also, think about it; if slavery were to be legal, how many corporations would buy slaves? i think many.

[Laissez-Faire]

So, level the playing field by manipulating the standards of the market? If a market will allow a certain business to develop, true stability arises when that business arises from the market, not government meddling with the market through grants and subsidies.

I agree with this to an extent.

The government should "meddle" with the market when it comes to small businesses.

Low-interest loans and subsidies allow smaller firms to succeed.

It is still manipulating the market. If you have a competitive market, smaller firms are given a greater chance of success or failure by the terms of the market, not who can get the most in subsidies.

[Anti Neo Nazis]

Hehe indeed. I have advanced post-rank two times all thanks to this thread!
I just love socio-economic debate.

The thing is while capitalism is dandy and all, advocating a 100% free market is not the best course of action, to put it lightly.
I would rather not return to the times of Industrial Britain, where small children worked in the mines, and the adult miners could abuse the children because the more coal they mined, the more money they got.

The industrial revolution had little to do with 100% free markets.

I'm mostly on your side here, but during the IR the markets were virtually 100% free. Industrialists had free reign to exploit the working class (Christ I sound like a marxist). Its quite likely that without government regulation monopolies and oligopolies and trusts would dominate industry, paying their workers subsistence wages and hold prices above productive efficiency. Hell the latter exists today in some specific cases. I don't think there is any serious argument for the complete elimination of the state or state regulations of the market. It's almost as fallacious as Communism is, it doesn't work in practice because it makes serious misjudgments about human nature.

[Sanguinthium]

Larger grants, less tax on those kinds of businesses, the general stuff to do to help encourage the creation of businesses, but to a bigger extent on that kind.
Another way to do it, for example, there is a large lack of jobs in a certain area; take a look at what that area needs (apart from jobs), have the state (on the local level) spend money to set up a business to meet that need, and then transfer control of it over to the workers/managers.

And it seizes to be a free market. Now you're planning shit.

Planned economies are less efficient.

except for when they work; then you call it capitalism.

[Conscentia]

Larger grants, less tax on those kinds of businesses, the general stuff to do to help encourage the creation of businesses, but to a bigger extent on that kind.
Another way to do it, for example, there is a large lack of jobs in a certain area; take a look at what that area needs (apart from jobs), have the state (on the local level) spend money to set up a business to meet that need, and then transfer control of it over to the workers/managers.

So, level the playing field by manipulating the standards of the market? If a market will allow a certain business to develop, true stability arises when that business arises from the market, not government meddling with the market through grants and subsidies.

Why not? Governments have been doing it for years. Without government meddling fossil fuels would become significantly less profitable. In-fact, if the US re-directed all funds to coal power to solar power, solar would become vastly cheaper than coal power.

Why not meddle with it some more to make something good happen out of government meddling rather than killing the planet.

[Sanguinthium]

The industrial revolution had little to do with 100% free markets.

I'm mostly on your side here, but during the IR the markets were virtually 100% free. Industrialists had free reign to exploit the working class (Christ I sound like a marxist). Its quite likely that without government regulation monopolies and oligopolies and trusts would dominate industry, paying their workers subsistence wages and hold prices above productive efficiency. Hell the latter exists today in some specific cases. I don't think there is any serious argument for the complete elimination of the state or state regulations of the market. It's almost as fallacious as Communism is, it doesn't work in practice because it makes serious misjudgments about human nature.

honestly, the russian industrial revolution had massive market regulation; admittedly, it happened in the 1930s, but still

the english one had absolutely no regulation, and trashed the environment, but also got shit done- but its not the only way.

[The Merchant Republics]

How do you "encourage" it?

Make coops tax-free. (And tax the other corps to death if you feel like being a cruel and non-benevolent leader. Though you'll still have to find a way to make up for the loss in tax revenue somehow.)

Which is precisely what I mean.

The only way mutualism can work is if you illegalize or in this case hamstring beyond operable sanity capitalism. The only way to make the system work is to make the other system not work. It's proof of their inefficiency.

If Mutualism and Capitalism in competition are like two runners in a race, capitalist systems will consistently win against mutualists (though both at least finish it, communism never showed up the starting line and state socialism passed out before the 50m mark), yes, mutualism could be the best system if you break capitalism's leg, but it wouldn't win a fair race.

[Sanguinthium]

Make coops tax-free. (And tax the other corps to death if you feel like being a cruel and non-benevolent leader. Though you'll still have to find a way to make up for the loss in tax revenue somehow.)

Which is precisely what I mean.

The only way mutualism can work is if you illegalize or in this case hamstring beyond operable sanity capitalism. The only way to make the system work is to make the other system not work. It's proof of their inefficiency.

If Mutualism and Capitalism in competition are like two runners in a race, capitalist systems will consistently win against mutualists (though both at least finish it, communism never showed up the starting line and state socialism passed out before the 50m mark), yes, mutualism could be the best system if you break capitalism's leg, but it wouldn't win a fair race.

except sweden is succeeding.

[Laissez-Faire]

Which is precisely what I mean.

The only way mutualism can work is if you illegalize or in this case hamstring beyond operable sanity capitalism. The only way to make the system work is to make the other system not work. It's proof of their inefficiency.

If Mutualism and Capitalism in competition are like two runners in a race, capitalist systems will consistently win against mutualists (though both at least finish it, communism never showed up the starting line and state socialism passed out before the 50m mark), yes, mutualism could be the best system if you break capitalism's leg, but it wouldn't win a fair race.

except sweden is succeeding.

I think Sweden has already been addressed.

Try another example.

[Sovietiya]

I feel so honored.

Care to explain?

He has no idea of what he's talking about.

I may not know everything, but for a college student (UK college, so younger than in American college), I know a heck of a lot of this kind of subject. More than others of my age. Also I will progress and learn over time. Anyways..
In industrial times the market was not 100% free, but it was very free.

While Socialism when attempted so far has failed, capitalism has caused countless to suffer aswell.
You want to point a finger at the USSR for the suffering there? Well guess what, I can point a finger at the coal mines of Britain, foresting industries in Canada, and factories of old, where there was no safety regulation so countless people lost limbs and died due to the lack of regulation.

While Socialism isn't paradise, neither is free market.
If it would not for the government's social welfare, I would have not had the money to go to the high school that I needed to go to. Which then I would have been without highschool education, which means I would have never been able to go to college and eventually get a job.

While for not capitalism is not all that bad, having it unregulated is suicide, and eliminating welfare is cruel - sure I don't want some bum living off the system, neither do I want someone who does want to get a job and work hard have to die or be at the mercy of others in order to stay alive. Low unemployment subsides are good (just enough to keep one alive), but eliminating that, and regulation, is both ideological and idiotic.

Infact, let me leave you with this nice quote I found:

„[...] the actual complaint of the worker is the insecurity of his existence; he is unsure if he will always have work, he is unsure if he will always be healthy and he can predict that he will reach old age and be unable to work. If he falls into poverty, and be that only through prolonged illness, he will find himself totally helpless being on his own, and society currently does not accept any responsibility towards him beyond the usual provisions for the poor, even if he has been working all the time ever so diligently and faithfully. The ordinary provisions for the poor, however, leaves a lot to be desired [...].“

— Otto von Bismarck, 20.03.1884

[Conscentia]

Make coops tax-free. (And tax the other corps to death if you feel like being a cruel and non-benevolent leader. Though you'll still have to find a way to make up for the loss in tax revenue somehow.)

Which is precisely what I mean.

The only way mutualism can work is if you illegalize or in this case hamstring beyond operable sanity capitalism. The only way to make the system work is to make the other system not work. It's proof of their inefficiency.

If Mutualism and Capitalism in competition are like two runners in a race, capitalist systems will consistently win against mutualists (though both at least finish it, communism never showed up the starting line and state socialism passed out before the 50m mark), yes, mutualism could be the best system if you break capitalism's leg, but it wouldn't win a fair race.

I'm not proposing breaking capitalism's legs...i'm merely pointing out that it is an option.

And i'm not for mutualism - i'm for cooperatives.

[Alagassia]

Also The terms Capitalism and Communism differ from state to state. There's no guaranteed form of either to suit every countries situations. It's why every country must adopt a broader spectrum of economic policy rather than have one form and one form only. It doesnt matter which form is implemented there are abuses as there are with every system.

I agree which is why I believe that freedom should be the most important rule, since people tend to conform their economy to their society as much as vice-versa, the most important thing is that there state, if it must exist at all be kept from interfering with the natural inclinations of their citizenry.

I believe that natural inclination would be capitalism, or at least conform to market systems.

cool, I believe otherwise, sometimes the situation does require capitalism, sometimes it requires Socialism it just depends on the situation i guess. A nation that has a diverse economy will not stagnate, I believe.

[Occupied Deutschland]

The industrial revolution had little to do with 100% free markets.

I'm mostly on your side here, but during the IR the markets were virtually 100% free. Industrialists had free reign to exploit the working class (Christ I sound like a marxist). Its quite likely that without government regulation monopolies and oligopolies and trusts would dominate industry, paying their workers subsistence wages and hold prices above productive efficiency. Hell the latter exists today in some specific cases. I don't think there is any serious argument for the complete elimination of the state or state regulations of the market. It's almost as fallacious as Communism is, it doesn't work in practice because it makes serious misjudgments about human nature.

If we're talking the 18th century part of the IR, there was by no means a free market. Mercantilist theory was still pretty strong so domestic industries in Britain still received a great deal of support (or outright legitimization as national monopolies *East India Tea Company*). Additionally, the government played a large role in the colonies where domestic industries got their raw resources, and then slapped tariffs on (or outright prohibited production of) colonial industries products. Finally, the government would prohibit or tariff the export to or import from nations they didn't like (Britain did this to France, Europe did it to the Netherlands for following a slightly freer (and more productive) system of freer trade, etc.)
A lot of this kind of stuff followed into the early 1900s.
Edit: Replace the first line with "If we're talking ANY part of the IR.

[The Merchant Republics]

The industrial revolution had little to do with 100% free markets.

I'm mostly on your side here, but during the IR the markets were virtually 100% free. Industrialists had free reign to exploit the working class (Christ I sound like a marxist). Its quite likely that without government regulation monopolies and oligopolies and trusts would dominate industry, paying their workers subsistence wages and hold prices above productive efficiency. Hell the latter exists today in some specific cases. I don't think there is any serious argument for the complete elimination of the state or state regulations of the market. It's almost as fallacious as Communism is, it doesn't work in practice because it makes serious misjudgments about human nature.

That's actually a major misconception.

The markets we're anything but free, keep in mind that most of the world during the IR was wrestling between Mercantilist and Nationalist policies, government routinely subsidized their domestic firms particularly railways and steamships, turned a blind eye to blantant violence against their workers (not something that should happen in a free market, despite the misconceptions) and often made absolutely ridiculous regulations (I can think of one law, that prevented charging different prices for hauling different goods, a policy which helped make made James J. Hill's Empire Builder Railway the most profitable and entirely private railway in the US at the time) and subject to favouritism and cronyism.

[Sovietiya]

Which is precisely what I mean.

The only way mutualism can work is if you illegalize or in this case hamstring beyond operable sanity capitalism. The only way to make the system work is to make the other system not work. It's proof of their inefficiency.

If Mutualism and Capitalism in competition are like two runners in a race, capitalist systems will consistently win against mutualists (though both at least finish it, communism never showed up the starting line and state socialism passed out before the 50m mark), yes, mutualism could be the best system if you break capitalism's leg, but it wouldn't win a fair race.

I'm not proposing breaking capitalism's legs...i'm merely pointing out that it is an option.

And i'm not for mutualism - i'm for cooperatives and a more Ricardian form of market socialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_socialism

(Simply with more regulation.)

An ally! Hello friend!

[Conscentia]

I'm not proposing breaking capitalism's legs...i'm merely pointing out that it is an option.

And i'm not for mutualism - i'm for cooperatives and a more Ricardian form of market socialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_socialism

(Simply with more regulation.)

An ally! Hello friend!

You mean comrade.

[Occupied Deutschland]

An ally! Hello friend!

You mean comrade Infidel.

Fixed.
_{Just givin' ya' shit, take it not seriously.}

[Sovietiya]

@The Merchant Republics

violence against their workers (not something that should happen in a free market, despite the misconceptions)

Please explain how it would not happen?

It seems to you guys that the free-market is something sacred and can never falter or do evil. ALL systems have their flaws granted, but don't be so naive about free-markets.
I try to critisise my own viewpoints. Granted it takes time, but I do try to look at it from the other side.

[Conscentia]

You mean comrade Infidel.

Fixed.
_{Just givin' ya' shit, take it not seriously.}

_{I wasn't being serious in that comment anyway.}

[The Merchant Republics]

Which is precisely what I mean.

The only way mutualism can work is if you illegalize or in this case hamstring beyond operable sanity capitalism. The only way to make the system work is to make the other system not work. It's proof of their inefficiency.

If Mutualism and Capitalism in competition are like two runners in a race, capitalist systems will consistently win against mutualists (though both at least finish it, communism never showed up the starting line and state socialism passed out before the 50m mark), yes, mutualism could be the best system if you break capitalism's leg, but it wouldn't win a fair race.

except sweden is succeeding.

Except Sweden isn't socialist. It's capitalist.

And stop, I've read your previous arguments. I know Sweden has regulations, welfare and other such systems that for some reason you conflate with socialism. Despite a world of evidence, not to mention the very definition of socialism working to the contrary. Socialism is the public or worker's ownership of the means of production, 90% of Sweden's GDP is created privately. There is no sane argument that they are socialist, unless you use the Republican definition of socialist as "anything relating to the government using power in the economic sphere".

Sweden has the 22nd freest market in the World. That's not the best, but out of the nearly 200 nations in the world? That's in the top 20%. If it is not capitalist, it is most certainly free market, and you have been conflating the two terms consistently throughout this thread.

[Sovietiya]

@Conscentia - Indeed
@Occupied Deutschland - hehe dont worry, I can take a joke.

[Conscentia]

What's all this free market nonsense anyway? How is the free market going to work if communism can't.
Why do you trust people to not become corrupt and do wrong in a free market, but not in communism?
Just because communism asks people to share property, it seems.
Free market relies on the goodness of human hearts as much as communism.