Capitalism vs. Communism

[The Merchant Republics]

Nor were you, necessarily the target of mine. That is simply my belief as it regards the inadequacy of communism.

"to answer you Consentia" - seems to me like I was.

I meant in regards to the body of my statement. I was answering your question, but not implying you believed I was such a capitalist.

I misspoke, pardon me.

[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.

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.

To add to Sibirsky's post, a technology can never truly be stable in a market unless it was developed by it's trial in a free market. Indeed, fossil fuel subsidies are present, so are those to alternative energies- but are just as harmful, if not more, to economic future. If you truly want solar industry to be stable, I wouldn't attach it to a government subsidy.

[Sibirsky]

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

This has nothing to do with capitalism.

Children always worked. People were poor. That was normal. So when the industrial revolution started, people were still poor, and children still worked, but now in factories.

It is thanks to the industrial revolution, that eventually production (and in turn, incomes) rose to the point were families could afford to send their kids to school, instead of to work.

You should be thankful for the industrial revolution, instead of blaming some supposed horrors of capitalism on it.

It was a dark time, no question about that. But it was a necessary step, to get to where we are today.

[Sibirsky]

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.

Nothing is stopping them.

Except perhaps inefficiency.

[Sovietiya]

capitalism has caused countless to suffer aswell.

Thats the most laughable and unfounded statement I've ever read.

Oh yeah? Well as I said. Think of the coal mines of Britain of, the factories, and the countless that died in them!
Stop being so ideological. While Communism, yes I agree 100% is impossible, capitalism ain't the shining paradise you make it out to be!

[Laissez-Faire]

Thats the most laughable and unfounded statement I've ever read.

Oh yeah? Well as I said. Think of the coal mines of Britain of, the factories, and the countless that died in them!
Stop being so ideological. While Communism, yes I agree 100% is impossible, capitalism ain't the shining paradise you make it out to be!

Even after all the rebuttals to your statement that have been made from many posters, how you portray these "coal mines of Britain" to depict capitalism is beyond me.

[Conscentia]

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.

Because government has no idea what technology is best. It should not dictate what power people use.

Let the markets decide what people will use. And if there is room for solar, it will develop. Otherwise, it's unethical, and wasting public funds.

Capitalism, is not killing the planet.

I know, people are. People who don't listen to scientific evidence are killing the planet.

[Sibirsky]

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.

Nonsense. Corruption is addressed by property rights and enforcement of contracts.

Markets do not rely on anyone's goodness. It relies of their desire to help themselves.

[Norstal]

Thats the most laughable and unfounded statement I've ever read.

Oh yeah? Well as I said. Think of the coal mines of Britain of, the factories, and the countless that died in them!
Stop being so ideological. While Communism, yes I agree 100% is impossible, capitalism ain't the shining paradise you make it out to be!

Capitalism don't kill people. People kill people. Same goes for communism actually.

[Anti Neo Nazis]

I guess the term free was a bad one to use. What I meant to say that there were substantially less regulations than there are today. The transition from mercantilism to capitalism was far from smooth and was rife with corruption that could only be stifled by the Ultra-Badass that was Teddy Roosevelt. I misspoke, but my contention still remains that regulation isn't a bad thing if you're sensible about it.

Law isn't necessarily a bad thing, but in general regulations have been.


Most regulations do the same job as laws but through sloppy-heavy handed ways, putting your worker's in undue harm might, and probably should be a breach of contract. But government's solution, rather than to enforcing those contract is to make people conform to their opinions of safety.

Building a home with inadequate wiring should be a breach of contract, but government's solution of mandating their preferred wiring set-up causes more problem.

I tend to agree, and I side with Friedman's view that the rule of law is a much better way of regulating the market then overreaching regulations. But that's not to say there should be no regulations whatsoever. Anti-trust and anti-monopoly regulations being the most prominent example. Some form of limited environment regulation to prevent the problems China is going though. I've never bough the libertarian belief (and I'm quite libertarian myself) that government is somehow inherently evil. Corrupt? In many cases. Incompetent? Sometimes, but I don't think that makes everything government does wrong. On a cost benefit basis (which I think should be the only factor in dictating policy) government regulations sometimes make a great deal of sense

[Sovietiya]

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.

Nothing is stopping them.

Except perhaps inefficiency.

That it utter BS.
I live in the UK, we founded the co-operative movement, and it is still going good and strong. One in particular called the Cooperative Group (consumer-cooperative) covers many things such as:
food
bank
travel
pharmacy
funeralcare
insurance
legal services
motors

John Lewis is a worker-cooperative. The workers get a say in how the business is run and get generous bonuses as part of the profits at the end of the year.
My mother had a friend who worked in a worker cooperative, and she told my mother that she loved working there, they get a vote in how things are run, and they get good shares of the profits at the end of the year, and the job quality was excellent.

Infact, cooperatives can be much more efficient and more productive than the normal kind of business, because people are more motivated because THEY own the business aswell, they get some of the profits, and they get a say in how it is run.

[-St George]

the process is something like this

cave men ---> agrarian barter ---> feudalism ---> mercantilism ---> capitalism ---> socialism ---> government becomes arbitrary, withers ---> communism.

Fictional process.

Government never withers.

They were predicting raeg.

Where's the raeg sib? WHERE?:p

[Sibirsky]

Yes, those who create the best products, and/or have the best prices for their products will generally rise to the top, but not to the extent that they are in today. Corporations are so big due to government intrusion.

Businesses must be allowed to fail. If we bail out businesses that go bankrupt, we are just propping up inefficient companies. If a company fails, another will come to replace it.

You can't blame the government for all the too big to fails.
Bankruptcy can cause major economic harm if the bankrupt business got big enough at a time when it's bankruptcy was inconceivable.

Yes you can. A) they helped create them, and grow them to such immense size. B) by bailing them out, public funds are given to entities that have destroyed wealth, instead of transferring their good assets to more productive entities.

Bankruptcies are normal, and must be allowed. They are a signal of wealth destruction. It's unethical and immoral to bail out businesses.

There is no economic harm from bankruptcies. The good assets of the bankrupt entity, are bought and used by a more productive entity. To create wealth.

Bailouts, decrease wealth by destroying it, and later perpetuating wealth destruction.

[Laissez-Faire]

I tend to agree, and I side with Friedman's view that the rule of law is a much better way of regulating the market then overreaching regulations. But that's not to say there should be no regulations whatsoever. Anti-trust and anti-monopoly regulations being the most prominent example. Some form of limited environment regulation to prevent the problems China is going though. I've never bough the libertarian belief (and I'm quite libertarian myself) that government is somehow inherently evil. Corrupt? In many cases. Incompetent? Sometimes, but I don't think that makes everything government does wrong. On a cost benefit basis (which I think should be the only factor in dictating policy) government regulations sometimes make a great deal of sense

The thing about anti-trust and anti-monopoly regulations in particular is that they both can impede the market of reward for innovation in a market, and are simply less necessary in a truly free and competitive market.

[Sovietiya]

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.

Nonsense. Corruption is addressed by property rights and enforcement of contracts.

Markets do not rely on anyone's goodness. It relies of their desire to help themselves.

So, a private company using force is justified, but a government using force is evil?

[Laissez-Faire]

Nonsense. Corruption is addressed by property rights and enforcement of contracts.

Markets do not rely on anyone's goodness. It relies of their desire to help themselves.

So, a private company using force is justified, but a government using force is evil?

What is the private company using force over in this hypothetical situation?

[Sibirsky]

Thats the most laughable and unfounded statement I've ever read.

Oh yeah? Well as I said. Think of the coal mines of Britain of, the factories, and the countless that died in them!
Stop being so ideological. While Communism, yes I agree 100% is impossible, capitalism ain't the shining paradise you make it out to be!

Already addressed. Not the result of capitalism.

[Anti Neo Nazis]

Thats the most laughable and unfounded statement I've ever read.

Oh yeah? Well as I said. Think of the coal mines of Britain of, the factories, and the countless that died in them!
Stop being so ideological. While Communism, yes I agree 100% is impossible, capitalism ain't the shining paradise you make it out to be!

No one has ever claimed Capitalism is a shining paradise. No one has ever claimed capitalism as perfect and no one but the most extreme of anarchists believe that capitalism should operate completely unfettered. What the mixed-capitalist system has done for the western world has been inarguably positive. Standards of living for everyone, rich, poor and in between have increased exponentially. Exploitation of workers occurs under all systems. Capitalism, unlike Communism succeeded in creating laws to prevent that.

Anti Capitalist people are missing the point. Capitalists do not claim that a capitalist system will make a nation a shining rainbow John Lennon paradise (John Lennon is my new favorite adjective). But overwhelmingly, taking into account human nature it can and has succeeded in creating an almost immeasurable increase in the quality of life for everyone living under it.

[Sovietiya]

So, a private company using force is justified, but a government using force is evil?

What is the private company using force over in this hypothetical situation?

I see where you are going with this.

It is using it over a contract. Now you will blab on about the social contract, and how you didn't sign it, and how if you do not adhere to it the gov will throw you in jail etc etc...
Well guess what, you can withdraw from the social contract. Revoke your citizenship and leave the country. Simplez

[Laissez-Faire]

What is the private company using force over in this hypothetical situation?

I see where you are going with this.

It is using it over a contract. Now you will blab on about the social contract, and how you didn't sign it, and how if you do not adhere to it the gov will throw you in jail etc etc...
Well guess what, you can withdraw from the social contract. Revoke your citizenship and leave the country. Simplez

Contract law is quite a bit more complicated than that.

[Sibirsky]

Nothing is stopping them.

Except perhaps inefficiency.

That it utter BS.
I live in the UK, we founded the co-operative movement, and it is still going good and strong. One in particular called the Cooperative Group (consumer-cooperative) covers many things such as:
food
bank
travel
pharmacy
funeralcare
insurance
legal services
motors

John Lewis is a worker-cooperative. The workers get a say in how the business is run and get generous bonuses as part of the profits at the end of the year.
My mother had a friend who worked in a worker cooperative, and she told my mother that she loved working there, they get a vote in how things are run, and they get good shares of the profits at the end of the year, and the job quality was excellent.

Infact, cooperatives can be much more efficient and more productive than the normal kind of business, because people are more motivated because THEY own the business aswell, they get some of the profits, and they get a say in how it is run.

Why are there so few of them?

If they are so efficient, and so much better than capitalist firms, why don't they pop up, all over the place and put the capitalist firms out of business?

What's stopping them? (Sib hypothesis: inefficiency).

John Lewis might be great. As a group, they seem to be lacking.

Corporate employees could be compensated in part with stock options, making them part owners of the business.

[New Rogernomics]

If I had to pick on the poll then Capitalist, but I generally don't like such labels. Anti-Authoritarianism, economic freedom, and civil and political rights are what I like, and generally I don't mind how to get there (so long it isn't through threat of violence or dictatorship and the like).

[Anti Neo Nazis]

I tend to agree, and I side with Friedman's view that the rule of law is a much better way of regulating the market then overreaching regulations. But that's not to say there should be no regulations whatsoever. Anti-trust and anti-monopoly regulations being the most prominent example. Some form of limited environment regulation to prevent the problems China is going though. I've never bough the libertarian belief (and I'm quite libertarian myself) that government is somehow inherently evil. Corrupt? In many cases. Incompetent? Sometimes, but I don't think that makes everything government does wrong. On a cost benefit basis (which I think should be the only factor in dictating policy) government regulations sometimes make a great deal of sense

The thing about anti-trust and anti-monopoly regulations in particular is that they both can impede the market of reward for innovation in a market, and are simply less necessary in a truly free and competitive market.

Monopoly's are bad. Making laws against monopoly's makes sense. Forget ideology and look at this from a cost-benefit perspective. Monopolies hold prices high, they keep production costs high, and keep production lower than it should be. Its not a question of freedom or liberty. Its a question of, is society better off with monopoly's and trusts running rampant? Undoubtedly the answer is no. Perhaps if we abandoned anti-trust laws we wouldn't see the entire nation fall under monopolistic industry's, but we would no doubt see the emergence of corrupt, colluding oligopolistic industries creating many of the same problems a monopoly does.

[Sovietiya]

Oh yeah? Well as I said. Think of the coal mines of Britain of, the factories, and the countless that died in them!
Stop being so ideological. While Communism, yes I agree 100% is impossible, capitalism ain't the shining paradise you make it out to be!

Already addressed. Not the result of capitalism.

Are you a dumbass?!
People who owned the coal mines employed people to work for them to mine coal. How is that not capitalism?!

[Sibirsky]

Nonsense. Corruption is addressed by property rights and enforcement of contracts.

Markets do not rely on anyone's goodness. It relies of their desire to help themselves.

So, a private company using force is justified, but a government using force is evil?

Where do you see me saying using force is ok? Are you being deliberately obtuse?