Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Understanding Communism and Capitalism
#1
I can't agree with either of these Ideologies. First off, communism would make me feel like I'm being controlled in an Orwellian type fashion. Everything I do for the good of the whole. It's considered Utopian, but I can't see how that works. I understand why it doesn't work all the time, but even if it did I would feel oppressed.

Capitalism I can identify with more because it provides more freedom, but sometimes I feel like it's end goal is to produce a winner, ie. someone with all the money. And also seeing this rich/poor gap get bigger and bigger, and seeing CEO's who spend all day golfing with their millions of dollars, yet a single mother working 3 jobs can't seem to make ends meet. I know everyone likes an economic discussion on this board, so help me out.
Reply
#2
Mike first off , it is important to realize that the word "capitalism" was a word coined by Karl Marx and made popular by his followers in his name. And naturally, it has become the de facto name. But it is not accurate, nor the real word. The real term for it is Free Enterprise, or Market Liberalism. This tends to make the concept appear a bit different than what 'capitalism' does.

And your idea that Free Enterprise is set up to provide a (single) winner, or one to receive the riches, is not correct. What you are referring to is a manifestation of what you call 'capitalism', in that it allows freedom of use. It is like the appearance of Fascism, where almost everyone thinks of it as militaristic, anti-Semetic, murdering, etc. None of them are characterists, but again manifestations of an economic system.

What Free Enterprise does is allow economic liberty for those who participate in the process.

Here is one definition:

Quote:a combination of economic practices that became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, especially involving the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" (or corporations) to buy and sell capital goods such as land, labor, and money (see finance and credit), in a free market (see trade), and relying on the enforcement by the state of private property rights rather than feudal obligations.

But here is what you are going to have to answer for yourself. Which is more important: everyone crossing the finish line in the quickest total time; or ensuring that they all cross the line at the same time together? Because if you use Free Enterprise, some will get there ahead of others, but the ability of the slowest in the group is enhanced in that they naturally get across easier than if they were not unrestricted.

But I will let others have a go at it first.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#3
That makes sense. I didn't know the term was coined by Marx

But If a free market economy starts to develop fascist characteristics, how does it's ideals excuse that? The ideals of religion are all related to peace and salvation, yet religion is a cause for war many times.

It seems human nature is the flaw of both these systems. Wink1
Reply
#4
StereoMike Wrote:It seems human nature is the flaw of both these systems.

Yes, but it is also the very strengths as well. The problem is to know what human nature does and how to channel it constructively.

Also, Free Enterprise does not have Fascist characteristics. The two principles are entirely different. I have been given a hard time by some for using the word "Collectivist" more than anyone else here. But it's definition and application are easy to understand, and it is a polar opposite of Free Enterprise.

If you take Collectivism, which includes Socialism, and Fascism, you would easily see that the State takes precidence over the individual. All Collectivist systems use a State/government planning system. The central state makes decisions as to where the economy is to go and how it is to accomplish this.

With the Free market approach, it is the individual citizen, acting within the economic system who makes the decisions as to where things head and how it is to be done. And they do this as customers, producing items, exchanging goods and services, and purchasing things as well. Believe it or not, any need for change or improvement is done more or less spontaneously, and quickly. With the state run system, this cannot happen as there are only a few who are making the decisions, and they tend to be wrong a good percentage of the time.

Now, there is a middle ground here, as in all things. And it is called a "mixed economy". The problem is that the more the mix moves toward the Collectivist approach, the more bogged down it becomes. Thus, the less the restriction, the quicker and better the system.

Clearly, there is no extreme position in practice. No Borg; no anarchy either. Yet of all the systems that work best under the least amount of rules, economise is the one. That is why Classical Economists use the term "Spontaneous Order". To an extent this works well, but does need a minimum of rules. The problem is when the State starts making too many of these rules.

And that is where Fascism comes in. Under Socialism, the means of production are owned by the state. Under Fascism, the means of production are highly controled and highly regulated by the state. So for all intents and purposes, the State really does own them in fact, just not in name. So that is the only difference between the two systems.

And it really isn't corporatism. It is Statism, where the State tells the Corporation what to do and how to do it. Mussolini first used that term, and it has been applied ever sense, but he really meant that HE would control the corporation, not the other way around.

I'm rambling, but I hope that this helps some. I have a great deal of links on Fascism. If you are interested, I can give you all you need to understand Fascism, which is the most misunderstood of the Isms today.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#5
I don't know about fascism. I do like the mixed economy Idea though.
Reply
#6
StereoMike Wrote:I don't know about fascism. I do like the mixed economy Idea though.

Why? Please explain.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#7
Well I think that certain programs function well when regulated by the government. For example, our health care system in Canada. very easy to get checked out without any sort of pay other than on taxes. However, I wouldn't want the government owning my apartment for example.
Reply
#8
StereoMike Wrote:Well I think that certain programs function well when regulated by the government. For example, our health care system in Canada. very easy to get checked out without any sort of pay other than on taxes. However, I wouldn't want the government owning my apartment for example.

I would suggest that the more simple the rules, the better the system works. The problem with regulation is that in an attempt to close loopholes, more regulation is required, until the relulation is and of itself the most important thing.

Let's take your Canadian health care system. While it does sound nice, until recently, it was against the law for anyone to pay for a private policy over and above the "free" system. Is that fair, if someone can afford to do so? And note that "free" health care is nice, as long as it is readily available. If the system will not allow for things such as CAT scans or MRI scans short of waiting in line for long periods of time, then is it really worth it.

The point is, will a nationalized system that is problematic at best, be more preferrable to a system that may, up front, cost more, but allows the market to provide the same services quickly. Keep in mind that in health care, time is always of the essence where life is concerned.

And also note that what you may plainly see is not always the most important thing. Usually it is the things that are unseen, such as cost of beaurocracy, redundence, and scarce resources, or subsidies that cost more than the private sector that are unseen, but also add up to the total cost of a service.

And in truth, the Cansdian health care system, is under huge pressures, because it does not effectively handle the health care of it's citizens.

And here is another thing. If something is supposed to be free, then it is not used frugally. If a citizen has a cold, they go to the emergency ward, and seek service, when the cure is well known and does not need a doctor. This adds to the over all price. If you have millions who believe themselves to be "entitled" to free service, the system becomes quickly overloaded.

Are you familiar with the new "Personal Health Care Accounts" that are being tried here in the US? It has all the pluses of a private system, yet costs far less than bothe the private and state system.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#9
Not familiar with them. could you explain?
Reply
#10
StereoMike Wrote:Not familiar with them. could you explain?

Try this thread on Health Savings Accounts. It will eventually branch out to private individuals and larger businesses as well. If you read Newt's article, he mentions the positive incintive of not getting sick and how it tends to help pay back to the subscribers.

I sispect that a modified form of this will eventually become the health care system in many places around the world, as it allows for the individual to decide and also because it is the most cost effective.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#11
I'm moving to the social democracy.
Ščepec slaščic za mišičaste pešce s stičišča cestišč.
Reply
#12
COS Wrote:I'm moving to the social democracy.

Unfortunately it cannot keep up with a more Liberty oriented society. That is exactly why most European countries are lagging further behind that othere emerging parts of the world, including the US.

The more a country's citizens give it's government power over it's lives, the less efficient it becomes, and the greater the chance for tyranny raising it's ugly head.

And as for Social Justice, as in the link you provided, that it simply code word for Egalitarianism, which is the backbone of socialism.
----------

The rule of law and a world according to "Social Justice" are mutually exclusive. One cannot have it both ways.

"Thou shall know the tree by its fruit." The rule of law gave birth to individual rights --- in other words, rights vested solely in individuals. Only individuals are capable of having rights, just as only individuals can be free. We say a society is free if the individuals who make up that society are free. For individuals to be free, they must have certain unalienable rights, and additional rights upon which they had agreed with one another.

Social justice has spawned an aberration called group rights. Group rights are the negation of individual rights. Group rights say in effect, "you cannot and do not have rights as an individual --- only as the member of a certain group." The Constitution knows nothing about groups. Groups have no standing in the eyes of the law. And, since their so-called rights are invariably created and conferred by persons of temporary authority, they are "subject to change without notice," as the saying goes, just like the definition of social justice itself.

Individual rights and group rights are mutually exclusive. Once again: one cannot have it both ways.

Among our individual rights, the right to acquire and hold property has a special place. That right protects the weak against the strong, it balances inborn gifts with the fruits of sheer diligence and industry. John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison held that civilized society is predicated upon the sanctity of private property, and that to guarantee it is government's primary function. Without absolute property there is no incentive, no security, no liberty. The freedom to enter into contract, the freedom to keep what is yours, the freedom to dispose of what is yours underlies all our liberties.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#13
John L Wrote:Unfortunately it [social democracy] cannot keep up with a more Liberty oriented society. That is exactly why most European countries are lagging further behind that othere emerging parts of the world, including the US.

I can live with that.
Ščepec slaščic za mišičaste pešce s stičišča cestišč.
Reply
#14
COS Wrote:
John L Wrote:Unfortunately it [social democracy] cannot keep up with a more Liberty oriented society. That is exactly why most European countries are lagging further behind that othere emerging parts of the world, including the US.

I can live with that.

If you can live with it, fine. But remember that the closer you move to the lion, the easier it is for him to reach out and grab you. Playing with fire is nice as long as you don't burn yourself, but the danger is always there.

If you take the time and read 20th century German history, particularily the time between the wars, it will become clear how a 'civilized' country allowed itself to be taken in by a tyrant. And the more power the central state has, the easier it is for him to assume the reigns of power.

And clearly, the one common factor that determines peace, prosperity, and liberty is individual economic well-being. At best, Democrat Socialism will work intermittently, as the majority of the voting citizenry will not share your lack of concern with regards to prosperity. It will either be voted down, or someone will take charge and force it on the populance. And clearly you are opposed to the use of force, right?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#15
Quote:If you take the time and read 20th century German history, particularily the time between the wars, it will become clear how a 'civilized' country allowed itself to be taken in by a tyrant. And the more power the central state has, the easier it is for him to assume the reigns of power.

John, this is the argument that some are putting out now that the Bush administration is trotting down this path by using the War on Terrorism to circumvent freedom from this time forward, using the Council on Foreign Relations plan for combining all nations into One World government. That is, of course, the link I sent you some time back....the one that mentions the Ford Foundation and the multiple rings of power.

What do you think about that connection? I know that it is possible, but of course, that opportunity has exited before under different wars we've been in (ie, the nationwide roundup of Japanese citizens during WWII and keeping them in camps). But, of course, after the war ended so did the end of curtailing of freedom for those groups.

Thoughts?
Solo~

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. --Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#16
Communism in the real world is just fascism, so I don't see why understanding the ideology is particularly important.
Reply
#17
Anonymous24 Wrote:Communism in the real world is just fascism, so I don't see why understanding the ideology is particularly important.

Because a lot of people don't agree with your assertion in various ways and continue promoting communism-based ideologies.


(I'm asssuming you actually meant to say "Communism in vivo is just a dictatorship",...the economics of Communism and Fascism are different)
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#18
"Communism", as defined by Marx, is a near-utopian society that is not possible considering the current evolution of humanity.

"Communism", as defined by Lenin and Stalin, is fascism. Now, I know some of you will say 'But the fascist ideology is different!'. I'm not talking about ideology. I'm talking about reality. And the reality of fascist ideology is that it values the power of the state above everything else Of course, they're wrong. Our own(the United States of America) government proves this wrong.

But the strange thingi is, many conseravitives in this country want a government that does not listen to the people!! They want a government that bans abortion(which the people support), bans women in the workplace(which everyone supports except those so feelbe that they cannot control their own urges), bans prretty much every new innovation
Reply
#19
I consider Communism closer to fascism. The state owns everything.
Reply
#20
StereoMike Wrote:I consider Communism closer to fascism. The state owns everything.

NOT under fascism, either Italian, or German variety. This is an essential difference between fascism and communism.

Of course, a fascist state can grab anything it likes, but the same is true for many governments today, cf. Russia/YUKOS, or US/recent SC decision.
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)