Capitalism vs. Communism

[The Merchant Republics]

Government cannot be trusted to moderate a "balance" of a free market and government protection.

Scandinavia seems to be doing well with it.

Scandinavia isn't quite so homogenous, Denmark and Iceland are doing great, because they're very strongly biased towards Market Freedom and their economies reflect it, but Sweden and Norway are not, and they have both been going through tough times over the last few decades, they are very well-off, but they were also extraordinarily well-off before their welfare systems. Inflation is high and many problems are beginning to show under their mostly sunny facade. That isn't to say they're bad, but they're given a little too much credit.

[Sovietiya]

No, it's not actually.

Feudalism is the first step to communism. It is more accurate to say that socialism is the first step in a post-capitalist society towards communism. Marx believed that each step, each type of society was leading towards communism.

the process is something like this

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

While that is the Marxist theory, I can already feel Sibirsky's wrath coming down upon the socialism->communism stage...

[Alagassia]

i like all this talk it's great goes back to the old Maxim: " Talk is Cheap"

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.

No I would rateher not go back to that horrible, horrible time either. Nahh this is fun to me

[Laissez-Faire]

the process is something like this

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

While that is the Marxist theory, I can already feel Sibirsky's wrath coming down upon the socialism->communism stage...

Meh, mostly the 'Government becomes arbitrary and just naturally withers' phase. That is what is simply what will not work in practice.

[Sovietiya]

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?

[Laissez-Faire]

Who says that abuse is the result of deregulation?

I feel so honored.

Care to explain?

[Keronians]

No, it's not actually.

Feudalism is the first step to communism. It is more accurate to say that socialism is the first step in a post-capitalist society towards communism. Marx believed that each step, each type of society was leading towards communism.

the process is something like this

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

There is a reason we went from feudalism to mercantilism to capitalism.

And that was that each of those systems was better than the other!

feudalism < mercantilism
mercantilism < capitalism

However:

capitalism > socialism

[The Merchant Republics]

Suppression of self-benefit?

Admittedly my knowledge of syndicalism is not the best.

From my understanding it's a system wherein labour unions are made the sole operators of their industry, I was given to understand that while this system would still have market exchange and prices, labour unions would have a defacto monopoly over their industries. Which I oppose and would suppress, albeit to a lesser extent then non-market sources, individual drive towards self-benefit.

[Malgrave]

the process is something like this

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

There is a reason we went from feudalism to mercantilism to capitalism.

And that was that each of those systems was better than the other!

feudalism < mercantilism
mercantilism < capitalism

However:

capitalism > socialism

with a social market economy being the superior model.

[Ilhuikatl]

Socialism is the inevitable way of the future, it will lead to an evolution in conciousness in the human race.

[Sovietiya]

I feel so honored.

Care to explain?

Sure, although it is rather self explanatory.
They got paid for the amount of coal they sold, so the more coal the more money. How to get more coal? Make the other miners that work for you extract more. How to do this? Motivate them? How to motivate them? Pay them more? Oh wait, beating and abusing them is cheaper than paying them more. So I will do that. No one will stop me, cos there is no regulation telling me I cannot and that I must treat my workers with respect.

[Sovietiya]

There is a reason we went from feudalism to mercantilism to capitalism.

And that was that each of those systems was better than the other!

feudalism < mercantilism
mercantilism < capitalism

However:

capitalism > socialism

with a social market economy being the superior model.

Germany FTW!

[Sibirsky]

Yes. To both.

Those are very different systems, and my argument here should not be interpreted as a condemnation of either, it is specifically addressed to Sanguithium's political views. I'm even open to the idea of market socialism, I would say a Propertarian version of Mutualism would be the most desirable economic system, the only reason I am not a mutualist is that I believe that mutualism can only be implemented by making capitalism illegal, and that in itself is against my deeply held beliefs.

Syndcalism tends, in my opinion toward the same suppression of self-benefit that exists in state socialism, albeit I admit, to a far lesser extent and would still fail to be as productive as a capitalist society.

Concerning the part about making capitalism illegal, I think not. People can still set up a business vai capitalist school of thought, but I think the main thing would not to be to restrict someone from setting up the capitalist style of business, but to instead encourage and help the growth of the other kind, y'know, to level the playing field, as it were. Then this can test Market Socialism's mettle and see what happens.

How do you "encourage" it?

[Laissez-Faire]

I feel so honored.

Care to explain?

Sure, although it is rather self explanatory.
They got paid for the amount of coal they sold, so the more coal the more money. How to get more coal? Make the other miners that work for you extract more. How to do this? Motivate them? How to motivate them? Pay them more? Oh wait, beating and abusing them is cheaper than paying them more. So I will do that. No one will stop me, cos there is no regulation telling me I cannot, and I must treat my workers with respect.

Well, stating it in debate trumps simply knowing it.

And contrarily, possibly the biggest moderating factor with the theoretical circumstance such as that is that indeed there would be a very powerful force attempting to stop you. Market pressure.

[Sibirsky]

No, it's not actually.

Feudalism is the first step to communism. It is more accurate to say that socialism is the first step in a post-capitalist society towards communism. Marx believed that each step, each type of society was leading towards communism.

the process is something like this

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

Fictional process.

Government never withers.

[The Merchant Republics]

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.

No I would rateher not go back to that horrible, horrible time either. Nahh this is fun to me

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.

[Sibirsky]

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.

[Conscentia]

Suppression of self-benefit?

Admittedly my knowledge of syndicalism is not the best.

From my understanding it's a system wherein labour unions are made the sole operators of their industry, I was given to understand that while this system would still have market exchange and prices, labour unions would have a defacto monopoly over their industries. Which I oppose and would suppress, albeit to a lesser extent then non-market sources, individual drive towards self-benefit.

I don't know much about Syndicalism either, though the Wikipedia page says nothing about a trade union monopoly over industries.
I don't really care about trade unions. (Though in my opinion a free market involves the free to unionise.)

[Sibirsky]

I feel so honored.

Care to explain?

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

[Alagassia]

No I would rateher not go back to that horrible, horrible time either. Nahh this is fun to me

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.

[The Merchant Republics]

the process is something like this

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

Fictional process.

Government never withers.

Also inaccurate.

Classical societies like Rome and Greece, among the myriads of others practiced neither Agrarian barter (they had currency) nor Feudalism, I believe Marx called the slave economies, but even that's probably inaccurate, all considering.

[Keronians]

There is a reason we went from feudalism to mercantilism to capitalism.

And that was that each of those systems was better than the other!

feudalism < mercantilism
mercantilism < capitalism

However:

capitalism > socialism

with a social market economy being the superior model.

Agreed.

But social market is capitalist.

[Sovietiya]

Concerning the part about making capitalism illegal, I think not. People can still set up a business via capitalist school of thought, but I think the main thing would not to be to restrict someone from setting up the capitalist style of business, but to instead encourage and help the growth of the other kind, y'know, to level the playing field, as it were. Then this can test Market Socialism's mettle and see what happens.

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.

[Conscentia]

Concerning the part about making capitalism illegal, I think not. People can still set up a business vai capitalist school of thought, but I think the main thing would not to be to restrict someone from setting up the capitalist style of business, but to instead encourage and help the growth of the other kind, y'know, to level the playing field, as it were. Then this can test Market Socialism's mettle and see what happens.

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.)

[Laissez-Faire]

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.