Capitalism vs. Communism

[Staeny]

Anyone find the irony in the fact that many avowed communists don't believe human compassion and charity can provide for the less fortunate? I know it's not fundamentally the same incentives in the economy, but you can't pretend that the parallels don't exist.
Is that irony, maybe just hypocrisy?

I suppose you just don't think that it's enough right? Although these occupy London people would be doing something more constructive by working voluntarily for several months for a charity....rather than using their parents' money or donation to sit around all day...

[Britennene]

I suppose you just don't think that it's enough right? Although these occupy London people would be doing something more constructive by working voluntarily for several months for a charity....rather than using their parents' money or donation to sit around all day...

Basically. The Occupy Movements in London aren't that strong.

[Staeny]

I suppose you just don't think that it's enough right? Although these occupy London people would be doing something more constructive by working voluntarily for several months for a charity....rather than using their parents' money or donation to sit around all day...

Basically. The Occupy Movements in London aren't that strong.

If I was a commie, I'd have donated money to charity rather than buy a flag to look non-conformist... you have to be more sly than that...

[Britennene]

Basically. The Occupy Movements in London aren't that strong.

If I was a commie, I'd have donated money to charity rather than buy a flag to look non-conformist... you have to be more sly than that...

I'd even pay a 100% taxation, if it would be used on social welfare. And I've donated a lot of money, and I have a communist emblem on my door just to scare the Jehovah's Witnesses away. That's about all the protesting I do

[Staeny]

If I was a commie, I'd have donated money to charity rather than buy a flag to look non-conformist... you have to be more sly than that...

I'd even pay a 100% taxation, if it would be used on social welfare. And I've donated a lot of money, and I have a communist emblem on my door just to scare the Jehovah's Witnesses away. That's about all the protesting I do

How could you judge that I deserved the same welfare as you if I worked half as hard?

[The Merchant Republics]

Anyone find the irony in the fact that many avowed communists don't believe human compassion and charity can provide for the less fortunate? I know it's not fundamentally the same incentives in the economy, but you can't pretend that the parallels don't exist.
Is that irony, maybe just hypocrisy?

It's a good thing Sibirksy is anti-copyright, because I think he'd have a trademarked on those.


Care to elaborate, I did by the way, make room for the explanation. The incentives are different, I realize, a communist society would be community first, the current system is me first, but one has to question if you don't trust the capability of people to provide for each other now, what would lead you to think that they would be capable if your society came into being.

In my view at least, a capitalist society could and to some extent does now provide for the poor (to a much greater degree than historically and in centrally planned economies). If we are capable of being charitable enough for communism to work than we shouldn't need communism, charity will protect the poor while the talented make the best of the benefit of a market economy.

[Britennene]

I'd even pay a 100% taxation, if it would be used on social welfare. And I've donated a lot of money, and I have a communist emblem on my door just to scare the Jehovah's Witnesses away. That's about all the protesting I do

How could you judge that I deserved the same welfare as you if I worked half as hard?

Because you're a human, worthy of equality.

[Staeny]

How could you judge that I deserved the same welfare as you if I worked half as hard?

Because you're a human, worthy of equality.

ok, continue to spoon-feed me, and everyone else who get's the same idea.

[Britennene]

Because you're a human, worthy of equality.

ok, continue to spoon-feed me, and everyone else who get's the same idea.

Okay.

[Staeny]

This idea could work for ape-human hybrids, which is why I support the Stalin regime's research into the subject.

Creating a genetically different class of people to work as slaves? How very communist of you...

[Sovietiya]

How could you judge that I deserved the same welfare as you if I worked half as hard?

Because you're a human, worthy of equality.

Well, it is an interesting issue. Being rewarded the same whether one works harder and the other less so; in my opinion is silly. But if someone is unable to do as much, then it is another story.
A good (but simple) example:

Two people work in a small shop. One makes 10 Christmas cards an hour (worker A). The other worker only has one arm (perhaps lost his other in an accident); so he is able to only make 5 Christmas cards an hour (worker B).
The question is; should they be both rewarded the same? Or should worker A be rewarded more than worker B because worker A makes more Christmas cards than worker B?
It is not that worker B is working not as hard as worker A, but it is that he has a physical disability, so he cannot work as hard.

Opinions?

[The Merchant Republics]

How could you judge that I deserved the same welfare as you if I worked half as hard?

Because you're a human, worthy of equality.

But you realize that this will engender a corruptible sort of spirit in people, don't you?

People will take advantage of that sort of societal largess, particularly because it's so impersonal, the problem with selfless giving is that the receiver of that good is always selfishly gaining. A society where I am to feed my brother but my brother has no self-same responsibility to me, or rather that is what comes of it. The idea that I have a responsibility to provide for my community extends only so far as the community will punish me for not providing.

If you create a system where I can live off my brother's work, and my brother has no recourse to make me work for it, you will naturally develop a parasitic class that simply lives off the hard work of everyone else, or else you must force them to work. There are but two ways to convince people to work, you can either punish the unproductive or reward the talented. If you do the former you take one step closer to tyranny, if you do the latter you take a step far outside the ideal of communism.

[The Merchant Republics]

Because you're a human, worthy of equality.

Well, it is an interesting issue. Being rewarded the same whether one works harder and the other less so; in my opinion is silly. But if someone is unable to do as much, then it is another story.
A good (but simple) example:

Two people work in a small shop. One makes 10 Christmas cards an hour (worker A). The other worker only has one arm (perhaps lost his other in an accident); so he is able to only make 5 Christmas cards an hour (worker B).
The question is; should they be both rewarded the same? Or should worker A be rewarded more than worker B because worker A makes more Christmas cards than worker B?
It is not that worker B is working not as hard as worker A, but it is that he has a physical disability, so he cannot work as hard.

Opinions?

Worker A should of course receive more, other factors notwithstanding (Worker B could make better cards, or they could have a previous profit sharing agreement). Elsewise the economy would not function properly, the cards must have a certain productivity value, if they only sell for one dollar and each man is supposed to earn $10 an hour, then only making 15 cards an hour they cannot both be paid.

[Staeny]

Because you're a human, worthy of equality.

Well, it is an interesting issue. Being rewarded the same whether one works harder and the other less so; in my opinion is silly. But if someone is unable to do as much, then it is another story.
A good (but simple) example:

Two people work in a small shop. One makes 10 Christmas cards an hour (worker A). The other worker only has one arm (perhaps lost his other in an accident); so he is able to only make 5 Christmas cards an hour (worker B).
The question is; should they be both rewarded the same? Or should worker A be rewarded more than worker B because worker A makes more Christmas cards than worker B?
It is not that worker B is working not as hard as worker A, but it is that he has a physical disability, so he cannot work as hard.

Opinions?

I'd be fine with this, but how do you differentiate between physical capacity and the actual effort? It's quite hard really. Plus the sad truth is that the able bodies person actually does contribute more to society if this is the case. Doesn't mean that there are other opportunities where disabled people are no more disadvantaged than able people- except for cases of severe disability of course.

[Keronians]

Well, it is an interesting issue. Being rewarded the same whether one works harder and the other less so; in my opinion is silly. But if someone is unable to do as much, then it is another story.
A good (but simple) example:

Two people work in a small shop. One makes 10 Christmas cards an hour (worker A). The other worker only has one arm (perhaps lost his other in an accident); so he is able to only make 5 Christmas cards an hour (worker B).
The question is; should they be both rewarded the same? Or should worker A be rewarded more than worker B because worker A makes more Christmas cards than worker B?
It is not that worker B is working not as hard as worker A, but it is that he has a physical disability, so he cannot work as hard.

Opinions?

Worker A should of course receive more, other factors notwithstanding (Worker B could make better cards, or they could have a previous profit sharing agreement). Elsewise the economy would not function properly, the cards must have a certain productivity value, if they only sell for one dollar and each man is supposed to earn $10 an hour, then only making 15 cards an hour they cannot both be paid.

And worker B should be left to suffer due to no fault of his own?

What kind of a society is that?

Now, I'm personally not too sure about the exact pay, but I'm pretty clear on the fact that, during recruitment, discrimination between the disabled and able should be illegal.

And if the method of payment is a salary, then worker B should get equal pay. Obviously, if it's piece-rate, he isn't going to get the same, but, IMO, he should still get more than, say, worker C who is able but is equally as productive as B.

[Staeny]

Worker A should of course receive more, other factors notwithstanding (Worker B could make better cards, or they could have a previous profit sharing agreement). Elsewise the economy would not function properly, the cards must have a certain productivity value, if they only sell for one dollar and each man is supposed to earn $10 an hour, then only making 15 cards an hour they cannot both be paid.

And worker B should be left to suffer due to no fault of his own?

What kind of a society is that?

Now, I'm personally not too sure about the exact pay, but I'm pretty clear on the fact that, during recruitment, discrimination between the disabled and able should be illegal.

And if the method of payment is a salary, then worker B should get equal pay. Obviously, if it's piece-rate, he isn't going to get the same, but, IMO, he should still get more than, say, worker C who is able but is equally as productive as B.

It's nobody else's' fault either though. Discrimination isn't right if they could do their job the same, but of course there are always certain jobs that cannot be done to the same efficacy by a disabled person. Realistically it's all about the productivity of a person. Consider for a second that we are literally working to feed ourselves in the wild- of course a more able person can produce more, and this work gives them more output.
Equal pay is analogous to giving everyone an A because they aren't all as smart as the cleverest members of the class, even if they tried really hard.

[Duce Natura]

Let's try to analyse them all:

Capitalist economic system:

Based on: Demand and offer
Works: good
Result: a stable economic system
Responsible for: the grow of China, the raising of the GDP (per capita) in former communist countries


Communist/socialist economic system:

Based on: production by needs
Works: Reasonable
Results: a weak economic system, but more 'equal' than capitalism
Responsible for: growing of the Soviet Union, Growing of China, making agriculture countries industrial



Conclusion?: First of all, socialist/communist system is good for countries who are in a transform, after that, please use the capitalist sytem.

[Phaedrus Imperator]

How could you judge that I deserved the same welfare as you if I worked half as hard?

Because you're a human, worthy of equality.

You are a Communist. This means that you don't quite qualify as a human.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Worker A should of course receive more, other factors notwithstanding (Worker B could make better cards, or they could have a previous profit sharing agreement). Elsewise the economy would not function properly, the cards must have a certain productivity value, if they only sell for one dollar and each man is supposed to earn $10 an hour, then only making 15 cards an hour they cannot both be paid.

And worker B should be left to suffer due to no fault of his own?

What kind of a society is that?

Now, I'm personally not too sure about the exact pay, but I'm pretty clear on the fact that, during recruitment, discrimination between the disabled and able should be illegal (1).

And if the method of payment is a salary, then worker B should get equal pay. Obviously, if it's piece-rate, he isn't going to get the same, but, IMO, he should still get more than, say, worker C who is able but is equally as productive as B.

1: A ban on hiring discrimination like that is ridiculous.
Three months ago, I hired another full-time employee (I run a welding/contracting business). One of the applicant for the job could only walk for short distances and couldn't carry anything heavier than 30 or 40 pounds.
I am INCAPABLE of hiring this person. They wouldn't be able to make up for the wage, Social Security, Insurance, and Licensing I pay to have them in the first place. Much less the production I lose because I have to help them with minor things all the time.
The guy was really nice about it though, and I kinda felt like an asshole. But I had to send him off with little more than an apology and a promise to call him if I ever thought about hiring an accountant/paper-organizer. There are certain jobs handicapped people just CAN'T do, and forbidding discriminating against them based on what they cannot physically do is ridiculous.

[Staeny]

Let's try to analyse them all:

Capitalist economic system:

Based on: Demand and offer
Works: good
Result: a stable economic system
Responsible for: the grow of China, the raising of the GDP (per capita) in former communist countries


Communist/socialist economic system:

Based on: production by needs
Works: Reasonable
Results: a weak economic system, but more 'equal' than capitalism
Responsible for: growing of the Soviet Union, Growing of China, making agriculture countries industrial



Conclusion?: First of all, socialist/communist system is good for countries who are in a transform, after that, please use the capitalist sytem.

Capitalism industrialises nations too. Take note of the industrial revolution. I'm sure many people would argue against saying it is stable too....but that is an argument that exists among promoters of different capitalist systems too...

[The Merchant Republics]

And worker B should be left to suffer due to no fault of his own?

What kind of a society is that?

Now, I'm personally not too sure about the exact pay, but I'm pretty clear on the fact that, during recruitment, discrimination between the disabled and able should be illegal.

And if the method of payment is a salary, then worker B should get equal pay. Obviously, if it's piece-rate, he isn't going to get the same, but, IMO, he should still get more than, say, worker C who is able but is equally as productive as B.

No, no. Simply that worker A should receive more for being a more productive worker, I make exceptions for previously agreed contracts and other examples of course, but it seems only fair.

I'm not in favour of him suffering at all, he lost his arm, I should like to imagine that people exist who would help him support himself, and by any rate this is supposing he does makes money at piece-rate and I don't see why not, piece-rate is generally the best efficiency wise and incentive wise, but I suppose that's why wage pay is preferred, and I wouldn't really oppose a store choosing to pay them equally, they all agreed to it.

But I would prefer to run my business by piece-rate, if possible.

[Duce Natura]

Let's try to analyse them all:

Capitalist economic system:

Based on: Demand and offer
Works: good
Result: a stable economic system
Responsible for: the grow of China, the raising of the GDP (per capita) in former communist countries


Communist/socialist economic system:

Based on: production by needs
Works: Reasonable
Results: a weak economic system, but more 'equal' than capitalism
Responsible for: growing of the Soviet Union, Growing of China, making agriculture countries industrial



Conclusion?: First of all, socialist/communist system is good for countries who are in a transform, after that, please use the capitalist sytem.

Capitalism industrialises nations too. Take note of the industrial revolution. I'm sure many people would argue against saying it is stable too....but that is an argument that exists among promoters of different capitalist systems too...

Every system got his own Yin and Yang. Overall, there is no 'best' system. I just pointed things out quickly.

[Keronians]

And worker B should be left to suffer due to no fault of his own?

What kind of a society is that?

Now, I'm personally not too sure about the exact pay, but I'm pretty clear on the fact that, during recruitment, discrimination between the disabled and able should be illegal (1).

And if the method of payment is a salary, then worker B should get equal pay. Obviously, if it's piece-rate, he isn't going to get the same, but, IMO, he should still get more than, say, worker C who is able but is equally as productive as B.

1: A ban on hiring discrimination like that is ridiculous.
Three months ago, I hired another full-time employee (I run a welding/contracting business). One of the applicant for the job could only walk for short distances and couldn't carry anything heavier than 30 or 40 pounds.
I am INCAPABLE of hiring this person. They wouldn't be able to make up for the wage, Social Security, Insurance, and Licensing I pay to have them in the first place. Much less the production I lose because I have to help them with minor things all the time.
The guy was really nice about it though, and I kinda felt like an asshole. But I had to send him off with little more than an apology and a promise to call him if I ever thought about hiring an accountant/paper-organizer. There are certain jobs handicapped people just CAN'T do, and forbidding discriminating against them based on what they cannot physically do is ridiculous.

Yes, there are situations where exceptions can and should be made.

But, say, a guy with a degree going to apply for an office job. There is literally no valid reason why he shouldn't get the job.

[Staeny]

Because you're a human, worthy of equality.

You are a Communist. This means that you don't quite qualify as a human.

Good heavens that make me guffaw... I almost swallowed my monocle.

[Staeny]

1: A ban on hiring discrimination like that is ridiculous.
Three months ago, I hired another full-time employee (I run a welding/contracting business). One of the applicant for the job could only walk for short distances and couldn't carry anything heavier than 30 or 40 pounds.
I am INCAPABLE of hiring this person. They wouldn't be able to make up for the wage, Social Security, Insurance, and Licensing I pay to have them in the first place. Much less the production I lose because I have to help them with minor things all the time.
The guy was really nice about it though, and I kinda felt like an asshole. But I had to send him off with little more than an apology and a promise to call him if I ever thought about hiring an accountant/paper-organizer. There are certain jobs handicapped people just CAN'T do, and forbidding discriminating against them based on what they cannot physically do is ridiculous.

Yes, there are situations where exceptions can and should be made.

But, say, a guy with a degree going to apply for an office job. There is literally no valid reason why he shouldn't get the job.

well yeah...because he is physically and mentally capable of doing the job...