Can Communism work?

Or a statement of fact. There was nothing emotive about it. I didn't break out the tissues or turn on the water-works. A small Government is the dream of a free-market capitalist. Care to disagree with that statement?

And I say your statement on exploitation is emotive and misleading.

I've seen footage of teenage girls making toys in a factory in China - and there were hundreds of them each assembling a part on the doll. But you know, those girls travelled there from all over China in order to get work. Obviously they were not forced. I know you will say they had no choice due to their economic circumstances, but not many people do, even in Western societies, until they gain knowledge and experience (it's called human capital). Even if this sort of factory 'exploitation' requires little skill, it provides them income which in turn is used to support themselves and their families. And their subsequent spending of their income fuels their own economy creating opportunities not only for businessmen, but peasants and the like, who take advantage of the demand for goods created by people having more income. (As opposed to China's state-allocated jobs, which hold no reward, no advancement, no opportunity (except skill), so that's why the people of China are flocking to the capitalist regions (I'm referring currently to the economic zone of Shenzhen (sp?)).

Provided the company is PLC. Also provided that "you and I" have the money to do so. Whatever the motive for being driven to make profit, exploitation is a necessary by-product.

By 'PLC' do you mean 'Publically Listed'? And everyone has the option to buy shares. You don't need a lot of money. And if by exploitation you mean 'cheap labour', why would govt's of poor countries set high minimum wages? It makes no sense if you want to attract investment to build up the economy.

The legislation is pro-business. Read it.

At least I know that in Australia, there are laws that enforce the recovery of assets to the creditors of a company (this is the case with an investment company I'm with, plus new legislation to recover shareholders funds from broke businesses with crooked accountants)

This is stupid. I didn't mean "save" it in the traditional sense - I meant conserve and heighten it, for whatever purpose. If re-investment is that purpose, I don't care. We're too far along in the process, Nyder. I'm interested in profit-generation, not profit-use.

Any profit they do make goes back into the economy anyway. Either to the government, consumption, investment or overseas.

And how many corporate bigwigs do you think are principled enough to sack themselves? This, like you said of my sentence earlier, is stupid, emotive, pointless rhetoric.

That if someone is underperforming with someone's elses money? Incompetence does occur, but that has to do with internal corporate organisation and the economics of power, not of capitalism.

The profit of all the charities in America put together would not be enough to create efficient socialised health care. Furthermore, poor people can't afford health insurance. And "with some people times get tough" isn't going to cut it.

Well, obviously they can't afford it, because of the large amounts of govt. spending. Let me explain:

As govt. spending on health increases, demand for health services increases. Now, remember the laws of demand and supply and the fact that govt. monopoly has dominated competition in this case. So you tend to have a greater demand than supply. This means that the price of health care goes up, to meet this demand.

So without government intervention, competition could force the price of healthcare down, probably dramatically considering the size of the industry. And gone would be the immense cues in public hospitals with people waiting hours to be treated with below-par healthcare.

Yes. It's called "competition." What fuels competition? Profit. What allows businesses to compete? Profit. What is the purpose of and en

 

And I say your statement on exploitation is emotive and misleading.

Ok, let's hear it.

I've seen footage of teenage girls making toys in a factory in China - and there were hundreds of them each assembling a part on the doll.

And this is a good thing? No. These huge factories only sprung up since China's economy was made to be more capitalistic.

But you know, those girls travelled there from all over China in order to get work.

And they get paid a pittance. Just because it's better than what they could have back home, doesn't make it "right." It makes it "less wrong." I'm sure an intelligent person as yourself (no sarcasm) can see this.

By 'PLC' do you mean 'Publically Listed'?

PLC = Public Limited Company, i.e., the shares are open to the general public.

why would govt's of poor countries set high minimum wages? It makes no sense if you want to attract investment to build up the economy.

I'm sorry, but giving people a living wage is more important than building up the company. I know it makes no sense economically, but it makes a hell of a lot of sense socially.

Any profit they do make goes back into the economy anyway. Either to the government, consumption, investment or overseas.

Or to the capitalists back-pockets. And anyway, apart from consumption, there is no need for them to go to those places. The surplus value should be returned to the workers, not frittered away on lining some fatcats pocket.

That if someone is underperforming with someone's elses money? Incompetence does occur, but that has to do with internal corporate organisation and the economics of power, not of capitalism.

That particular internal organisation and "economics of power" wouldn't exist within Communism, however, it does within Capitalism. I see this is as self-evident when damning capitalism.

As govt. spending on health increases, demand for health services increases.

No, demand for the Government supported health care incrases. People don't suddenly start getting sicker because the Government spends more.

Now, remember the laws of demand and supply and the fact that govt. monopoly has dominated competition in this case. So you tend to have a greater demand than supply. This means that the price of health care goes up, to meet this demand.

Of course. What's the problem with that? If the Government spent less on defence, the amount going into said health care would cover demand admirably. What's more important to the majority of the people? Free health care or warmongering?

So without government intervention, competition could force the price of healthcare down, probably dramatically considering the size of the industry.

Ah, but we know this isn't true. In the 80's, in Britain, The Troll (Margaret Thatcher) and her cronies privatised (deregulated) the NHS. You know what? Prices did go down. You know what else? Waiting lists went through the roof, efficiency hit an all-time low and it provided health care roughly comparable with a backwater country. Now the Government has to pour ridiculous amounts of money into it to keep it going, where, if it hadn't been privatised in the first place, the price would still have been high, sure, but at least there would have been a much higher level of efficiency and care. It's WRONG that health care is in the hands of companies - their interests are not in the same thing than it would be if it was in the public sector. A business, by definition, wants to make money - it doesn't do that providing top-notch health care. It does that by cutting costs and efficiency.

NO. Competition is what forces prices down, and makes goods more affordable to the consumer.

And how does one fuel competition? By increasing ones profit! By cutting corners, cutting wages, cutting people's heads off (to be a little dramatic).

Mass production, in a Socialistic system, would not be quite as large as it is now (mass production is really a thing of the Industrial Revolution onwards).

 

TSB spending less on defence means you don't support the war on terror and therefore you're a terrorist.

E_S

 

From the World Resources Institute:

Overview
Economic growth is an important factor in reducing poverty and generating the resources necessary for human development and environmental protection. There is a strong correlation between gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and indicators of development such as life expectancy, infant mortality, adult literacy, political and civil rights, and some indicators of environmental quality. However, economic growth alone does not guarantee human development. Well-functioning civil institutions, secure individual and property rights, and broad-based health and educational services are also vital to raising overall living standards. Despite its shortcomings, though, GDP remains a useful proxy measure of human well-being.

The world economy has grown approximately fivefold since 1950, an unprecedented rate of increase. The industrialized economies still dominate economic activity, accounting for US$22.5 trillion of the US$27.7 trillion global GDP in 1993 [1]. Yet a remarkable trend over the past 25 years has been the burgeoning role played by developing countries, in particular the populous economies of east and south Asia. (See Rapid Growth in Low Income Economies.)

A major factor in this development has been the steady integration of the global economy. Since the Second World War, international trade has grown consistently faster than output and now accounts for approximately 25 percent of world GDP. Other measures of globalization include the enormous expansion of international financial markets, the spread of new technologies that have revolutionized international communications and encouraged the development of transnational patterns of production and consumption, and the fourfold increase in foreign direct investment flowing to developing and transition economies over the past decade [2] [3].

However, this overall picture masks large, growing disparities among the developing countries; not all countries have been able to take advantage of the benefits of globalization. Since about 1980, the fastest-growing economies of Asia and Latin America have been characterized by high rates of domestic savings, declining dependence on agriculture, and a rapid growth in trade, especially of manufactured exports. The emerging economies of the developing world -- such as Brazil, China, Indonesia, and Mexico -- have been increasingly attractive to private finance; two thirds of the US$95.5 billion foreign direct investment flows in 1995 went to just six developing countries [4]. In addition, of the estimated 12 million jobs created by transnational corporations? investment in developing countries, about half are in China [5].

Alongside this unprecedented economic surge, some 100 countries have experienced economic decline or stagnation; in 70 of these countries, average incomes are lower today than they were in 1980 [6]. Factors in this decline include continued dependence on exports of primary commodities and falling commodity prices, high levels of indebtedness, slow progress with political and macroeconomic reform, and, in some countries, political instability and armed conflict. These circumstances have discouraged foreign direct investment and contributed to a continuing decline in the real level of official development assistance from the industrialized countries. This is a critical development, given that such assistance constitutes nearly two thirds of net monetary flows to low-income countries. In the case of the transition economies (Russia and central and Eastern Europe), political and economic turmoil following the fall of Communist regimes has led to sharp declines in income and standards of living since 1990 [7].

The net result of these contrasting trends is that more than 3.8 billion people have seen their incomes rise by 3 percent or more from 1980 levels, but some 1 billion others?more than one fifth of the world?s population?are worse off [8].

In the developing countries as a whole, broad-bas

 

I think that playgroup point was a good one. If kids can play happily together sharing their toys equally, why can't adults? How rediculous would a "capitalist" playgroup be? With all the kids having to work for their toys, and this one kid with all of the toys, ordering everyone around for a tiny bit of the cookie?

I would rather live in a society with no homeless people and no people living in mansions with 3 cars than a society with thousands of homeless people and only a select few rich people.

 

"I would rather live in a society with no homeless people"

And this is where?

 

I think it was a Utopian statement...

E_S

 

I think Utopia would have a better chance of existing in some form of Communisim rather than Capitolism. Just look at Star Trek!

 

You cant use Star Trek in your argument, that is fiction!

Seriously, the world that Gene Roddenberry envisioned in Trek would so not work.

To quote someone I can't remember: 'Communism doesn't work, because people want stuff'

 

But... but... they get to fly in spaceships!!

 

In Star Trek, there is no money right?

Then, how would you get a bigger house if you wanted one?

 

People need to realise that such trivial things do not matter. As long as your house is warm, liveable, big enough for all that live in it, then it is absolutely fine. Why does one person need to have a mansion??

 

And they get paid a pittance. Just because it's better than what they could have back home, doesn't make it "right." It makes it "less wrong." I'm sure an intelligent person as yourself (no sarcasm) can see this.

They get paid above board wages to them, and with further industrialisation means further jobs, and higher incomes.

Shenzhen

Or to the capitalists back-pockets. And anyway, apart from consumption, there is no need for them to go to those places. The surplus value should be returned to the workers, not frittered away on lining some fatcats pocket.

You're wrong. High earners don't store their money in a bank vault - what's the point? The value of the money would just depreciate because of inflation. So they either invest it or spend it, and it becomes a part of GDP.. So, this money flows back into the economy (unless it is used to buy imports).

That particular internal organisation and "economics of power" wouldn't exist within Communism,

Ideally, yes. In practice? NO.

No, demand for the Government supported health care incrases. People don't suddenly start getting sicker because the Government spends more.

You're ignoring the supply side. If you have too many public hospitals, they would not have the resources to meet this demand. Which is what has been happening.

Of course. What's the problem with that? If the Government spent less on defence, the amount going into said health care would cover demand admirably. What's more important to the majority of the people? Free health care or warmongering?

Health care is no different from other goods and services. Though I tend to agree that developing countries should concentrate more on health spending until they can develop more.

Ah, but we know this isn't true. In the 80's, in Britain, The Troll (Margaret Thatcher) and her cronies privatised (deregulated) the NHS. You know what? Prices did go down. You know what else? Waiting lists went through the roof, efficiency hit an all-time low and it provided health care roughly comparable with a backwater country. Now the Government has to pour ridiculous amounts of money into it to keep it going, where, if it hadn't been privatised in the first place, the price would still have been high, sure, but at least there would have been a much higher level of efficiency and care. It's WRONG that health care is in the hands of companies - their interests are not in the same thing than it would be if it was in the public sector. A business, by definition, wants to make money - it doesn't do that providing top-notch health care. It does that by cutting costs and efficiency.

Cutting costs? Efficiency? That's more what the government does.

What's the difference between a government providing a good or service or a corporation providing a good or service? Since the corporations must attract customers, they must compete to provide the most quality service possible.

And how does one fuel competition? By increasing ones profit! By cutting corners, cutting wages, cutting people's heads off (to be a little dramatic).

Corporations are hardly going to compete if they cut down production of goods (this happens in a downturn, when there is little demand for the good). If competition is high, they have to either innovate or provide competitive prices. Production is based on demand, not profit.

Well, it does, but it just can't make as much money; again, that tends to happen when you pay a decent wage and cut inefficiency, rather than labour costs.

So if I come up with a hot-selling product in a socialistic system, I distribute the profits to all of the labour. Who is the one pointing the gun to my head telling me that I must do it and how to do it?

I know. And business is in the wrong. Socialism/Communism, I'm sure you'll agree, puts the welfare of the collective people above the f

 

Because they want one?

If people are prepared to say "I will work very hard, so I can have a huge house", why shouldnt they?

Shy shouldnt people reap the benefit of their labour, instead off subsistence? That is no way to live!

If people were only given what they needed by the government, it would result in the most opressive governemnt one could ever imagine.

In Star Trek, the producers sugar coat everything, and pretend that it works, when in reality the system would inevitably collapse.

 

Hey Nyder, don't you have a Macroeconomics exam tomorrow morning?

Study!

 

Why does one person need to have a mansion??

Because there is no set definition for "comfort".

 

I want a mansion, just in case anyone cared?

Wow, lots of reading to do here... Maybe later I'll read and reply, but Scarlett seems intent to reply to everything. I'll keep it short!

 

They get paid above board wages to them, and with further industrialisation means further jobs, and higher incomes.

Above board wages? Illegal immigrants? Hmm, a little naive here, don't you think?

You're wrong. High earners don't store their money in a bank vault - what's the point?

In fact, a lot to. That's the definition of wealth - having material and liquid assets. Not how high your income is. Y'know, Bill Gates - I doubt his billions are reinvested into Microsoft - the majority will be kept in accounts and assets.

So they either invest it or spend it, and it becomes a part of GDP.. So, this money flows back into the economy (unless it is used to buy imports).

This is a little silly. Profit is not always spent on things that will return it to the economy. And even if it was, it would return to the people running the economy. Little of it filters down to the little guy.

Ideally, yes. In practice? NO.

In practice, YES. If it didn't exist in practice, it wouldn't be Communism.

You're ignoring the supply side. If you have too many public hospitals, they would not have the resources to meet this demand. Which is what has been happening.

"Too many public hospitals"? Take a look at Britain. We don't have enough. Waiting lists are one of the most salient issues in elections over here. There is more demand than supply, so the NHS functions.

Cutting costs? Efficiency? That's more what the government does.

Actually, the NHS functioned a lot more efficiently when it was in the public sector. Costs were higher, but that's irrelevant, as they were managable and it provided a much-needed service. Costs are only lower now because patients come after profits.

What's the difference between a government providing a good or service or a corporation providing a good or service? Since the corporations must attract customers, they must compete to provide the most quality service possible.

Ah, but it doesn't work like that. Instead of vieing to provide the highest quality service, they vie to cut the costs as low as possible, reducing the standards of patient care. This is actually happening in Britain.

Corporations are hardly going to compete if they cut down production of goods (this happens in a downturn, when there is little demand for the good).

You are not listening to me. They not only DO cut down in the production of goods in order to save money, creating waiting lists (this is why a hospital is different to any other goods or service), but they also cut corners on standards and practice, ensuring that patients get a lesser standard of care. Which is more important than competing.

If competition is high, they have to either innovate or provide competitive prices. Production is based on demand, not profit.

They are providing competitive pricing. That's the point, though - in order to be able to provide that pricing, they're cutting corners, endangering patient's well being.

So if I come up with a hot-selling product in a socialistic system, I distribute the profits to all of the labour. Who is the one pointing the gun to my head telling me that I must do it and how to do it?

This has nothing to do with Hospitals.

But are we really a collective or a rather the sum of the individuals?

We are both. We are each individuals, unique, but we are also a collective. That's where the phrase 'different but the same' comes from. Primarily, above anything else, humans are social animals.

Ideally righteous. Practically impossible.

Incorrect. Nationalisation happens a lot.

By all the workers? How are they all supposed to know how to run a business?

This shows just how much you believe in the elite theory. Workers are just as capable of running a business as the current people are.

And they are all payed equally?

Everyone, at a minimum, will have what it takes to survive. On top of that, any money you have will be earned through your own hard work and intellig

 

Kaine Damo:

Whoah, back up! The Federation of Planets from Trek IS NOT Communist. LOL!

Egalitarian? Yes. Socialist? Perhaps, but not Communist.

 

A little bit of communist ideas mixed with the best of capitalism, and hey it's all good baby, I call it JPism

The new and improved political taxonomy

Oh and Nyder, I'm stalking you

 

Communism cannot work for the following reasons:

Marx said in the Communist Manifesto that when communism is achieved, there will be no classes. All will be in the same social status.

However, there has to be a government or the country will go into chaos.

The economic part of Communism said that all people made the same amount of money regardless of what job they have.

However, if I have a job as a doctor abd my neighbor is a fast-food worker, I would be more than angry if we made the same amount.

 

"Whoah, back up! The Federation of Planets from Trek IS NOT Communist. LOL!"

There is a few communist ideas in there. Money is none existent. And people only work for the sheer pleasure of working.

 

"Money is none existent."

That doesn't make it communist. It doesn't make it capitalist either. This will happen in the near-future btw. Not Trek, but the disappearance of currency.

"And people only work for the sheer pleasure of working."

In communism, people work not for the pleasure of working. Are you kidding? They work to supply each according to ones need. Work is very important in a communist society.

By contrast, in capitalist nations, well some, leasure time is highly regarded.

Capitalism and Marxism are both rooted in the development of a mass-industrialist society.

In Trek, the Federation of Planets exists primarily for intergalactic politics, not internal politics. Hence the "hands-off" policy from the Prime Directive.

 

Communism cannot work for the following reasons:

[sarcasm] I can feel a great revelation coming! [/sarcasm]

Marx said in the Communist Manifesto that when communism is achieved, there will be no classes. All will be in the same social status.

Correct, more or less.

However, there has to be a government or the country will go into chaos.

How very... eloquent. However, that is incorrect. Order would be maintained by local militias and community councils, membership to which would be democratically chosen, with no capacity for power over others.

The economic part of Communism said that all people made the same amount of money regardless of what job they have.

Did you read the Communist Manifesto? Have you read any other Marx works? No, you obviously haven't. This was not what Marx said, at all. To take your example below - a doctor and a fast-food worker. If a fast-food worker works harder, and generates more profit, then yes, he'll earn more. However, if the doctor generates more profit and works hardest, then he will earn most money. The only difference will be that their capacity for earning will be equal - not the AMOUNT they earn.

Well, I was expecting a revelation and I didn't receive one. How horribly disappointing.

- Scarlet.

 

Above board wages? Illegal immigrants? Hmm, a little naive here, don't you think?

Illegal immigrants? I think it's naieve to think an illegal immigrant could expect to enter a country and start earning a high wage.

In fact, a lot to. That's the definition of wealth - having material and liquid assets. Not how high your income is. Y'know, Bill Gates - I doubt his billions are reinvested into Microsoft - the majority will be kept in accounts and assets.

Like I said, I don't think millionares would keep cash because of inflation. They can decide what they want to with their money though.

This is a little silly. Profit is not always spent on things that will return it to the economy. And even if it was, it would return to the people running the economy. Little of it filters down to the little guy.

I disagree. It doesn't matter where they put their money (in banks, buy things, etc) because their expenditure actually multiplies thoughout the economy (ie. if they put money in a bank, the bank will lend it out to investors, who invest in a business which in turn hires workers, etc, etc)

Ever heard of the multiplier? Millionares have a lot of power to pump up the economy by their expenditure (as governments do, and aggregrate consumption).

"Too many public hospitals"? Take a look at Britain. We don't have enough. Waiting lists are one of the most salient issues in elections over here. There is more demand than supply, so the NHS functions.

Sounds about right. How much does your government spend on health?

Actually, the NHS functioned a lot more efficiently when it was in the public sector. Costs were higher, but that's irrelevant, as they were managable and it provided a much-needed service. Costs are only lower now because patients come after profits.

I don't know what the situation is in Britain. But look at it this way: if I wanted to attract customers, I'd have to create a quality service that stands out from my competitors, otherwise I'll never make a profit. That's why I believe privatised health care would be more efficient and cheaper (as competition tends to lower prices). However there can be other externalities involved, and I don't think you can just suddenly shift to a fully privatised healthcare system. I'm talking about gradual reform.

You are not listening to me. They not only DO cut down in the production of goods in order to save money, creating waiting lists (this is why a hospital is different to any other goods or service), but they also cut corners on standards and practice, ensuring that patients get a lesser standard of care. Which is more important than competing.

Don't you realise that standard of care would be a part of competing? (companies would compete over standard of care to attract customers). And the medical industry is no different from other goods and services industries, except for size (you mention waiting lists, but many other business have waiting lists for products and services). And why are there waiting lists? Because of short supply. This needs to be investigated further though to find the root of the problem.

They are providing competitive pricing. That's the point, though - in order to be able to provide that pricing, they're cutting corners, endangering patient's well being.

You obviously have no grasp on the operation of business. Businesses don't always make a profit. If their prices are too high, they may lose customers, if their prices are too low, they may not be able to afford costs. (Remember that the final price is the sum of the value added in all modes of production).

Let's say that they cut production by sacking workers in order to bring down prices. This means that there loss of supply (workers) may go against them if demand for their services increases, and they do not have enough workers to cope with the extra work involved.

This has nothing to do with Hospitals.

I don't know why you started talking about hospitals in the first place. [fa