Communism - Yea or Nay?

[Rebdragon]

A recession doesn't mean it doesn't work. A recession means it isn't perfect. You know, just like the humans who drive it *cough barney frank.

 

The same could be said about Communism, could it not?

 

There's a difference between "not perfect" and "downright doesn't work".

 

 

 

And before you start with "empirical evidence" (which you've yet to present), there are examples of Communism actually working in countries, albeit brutally. It could be argued the USSR would not have survived the Nazis' offensive on Moscow and Stalingrad had collectivisation and the FYPs not come before. Britain, to all intents and purposes effectively was a Communist regime during WWII, thanks to the Emergency Powers Act, and yet despite factories being bombed and having their food rationed, production per worker rose by 10%.

 

 

 

Yet to... the entire capitalist world is empirical evidence. The United States became a world power thanks to capitalism (and a war or two). China is seeing record growth because of capitalism/the private sector. I thought you were the kind of person who didn't like obvious things explained to them. Apparently not :| .

 

 

 

Yes, I understand the necessity for governments to take more control during wartime; when a nation is under attack it's basically unite or die. That still doesn't convince me that communism is a viable economic system. If it were, why would Britain lossen it's government control after the war?

 

 

 

I think it would be worth clarifying at this point exactly what 'work' means. Each system has its economical advantages and disadvantages, there's no 'Model X is better than Model Y' answer here.

 

Utopianism has it's economic advantages: everyone's happy and countries see record growth. Except that's an economic advantage you see on paper rather than in the real world.

[archimage_a]

Sigh...Lets go with the more direct answer shall we?

 

 

 

No money = end of Capitalism

 

 

 

You see the reason why I am using ellipses is because oddly enough I was brought up in a capitalist system, it is not in my nature to understand a communist system. I have to work at it. We all have to work at understanding it. You saw what I said and decided I was saying equal wages. I never said equal wages I said nothing about wages, I said VERY clearly that people didn't get paid. Not because of some Communist government but because the country went bankrupt.

 

 

 

That is, you don't justify Communism at all.

 

I don't see any justification from your side. I don't see you justifiying the constant suffering of Africa because of European exploitation, or Europe from American exploitation. Or Hitler's regime. The fact is you haven't justified it.

 

 

 

Capitalism doesn't "turn on us", it goes through short recessions every few years because of the business cycle.

 

Oh yes because Hitler's rise to power wasn't Capitalism turning on us. It wasn't a country suffering a depression and chose a radical leader.

 

 

 

I remember when Sommerfield was taken over by Morrisons(two British super stores), the only reason Morrisons got it was because the Monopolies commission said the other superstores would be too big otherwise.

 

But when there is a recession like this one going on suddenly its alright for Barclayes to take a lions share of the market to make sure the economy doesn't go under.

 

So Capitalism does turn on us. It forces us to sacrifice our principles.

 

 

 

But honestly I don't know why I am arguing with you...Unless you actually try to understand you have very little chance of understanding.

 

There's a difference between "not perfect" and "downright doesn't work".

 

Sort of proves my point doesn't it; you are not willing to even give thought to it, you just instictively know it is wrong.

 

 

 

the entire capitalist world is empirical evidence

 

Indeed. Almost 400 years ago America was founded. With a massive boost from Europe and masses of natural resources it took about 200 years(from the 1700s to the 1900s) to actually develop into a superpower.

 

Communism on the other hand, took 10 years. In a country that didn't have investment, who's only income was selling grain, which was falling in price.

 

So yeah the capitalist world is empirical evidence of the flaws of the capitalist world.

 

 

 

Of course to be fair Hitler only took seven years to achieve an industrial base that could stand up to America; So maybe Fascism wasn't such a bad theory after all.

 

 

 

 

 

China is seeing record growth because of capitalism/the private sector.

China is seeing record growth because it's people don't spend money on random rubbish like Americans and Europeans do, instead they save it. China also has been buying large amounts of foreign currancy to keep prices low, which means investment pours in. The boom bust system has truely been taken advantage of.

[Ginger_Warrior]

If you believe Communism is systemically flawed, care to explain how?

 

 

 

And before you start with "empirical evidence" (which you've yet to present), there are examples of Communism actually working in countries, albeit brutally. It could be argued the USSR would not have survived the Nazis' offensive on Moscow and Stalingrad had collectivisation and the FYPs not come before. Britain, to all intents and purposes effectively was a Communist regime during WWII, thanks to the Emergency Powers Act, and yet despite factories being bombed and having their food rationed, production per worker rose by 10%.

 

Yet to... the entire capitalist world is empirical evidence. The United States became a world power thanks to capitalism (and a war or two).

 

The US became the world's main power for several reasons, not just capitalism. To name but a few:

 

 

 

1) The decline of the UK, Germany and France as world powers. Also, the US's role in Spain's waning influence over the Caribbean.

 

2) Its vast military. The US spends much more than most not only on its own military, but its allies (Israel at the moment, for example).

 

3) The fact it's the leader of the capitalist world.

 

4) Geographically, America has an abundance of resources and space to inhabit with industry and commerce.

 

 

 

This is what people in the western world, particularly America, fail to understand about capitalism and trade. America is a massive consumer without really having a fantastic amount of exporters. In order to balance the trade deficit, America 'sucks in' capital from the rest of the world. This recession, as much as anything, proves the world doesn't have enough capital to sustain America's level of consumption and have every nation on Earth running under capitalism.

 

 

 

Claiming China is prospering for the same reason as America is also a fallacy. China doesn't have record levels of debt because its economy is not focused around the financial market. The Chinese are far more cautious with their money and generally speaking only buy what they can afford (public debt as a % of GDP: China 18.40; USA 60.80). Contrary to the USA, they are also massive exporters to balance their trade deficit.

 

 

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you're going to proclaim "I understand and support Capitalism", at least understand how it works beyond a blitz basic description like 'free market'.

 

 

 

Yes, I understand the necessity for governments to take more control during wartime; when a nation is under attack it's basically unite or die.

 

There were more reasons than that. Economically, Britain wasn't powerful enough. Britain could not match the Germans for industrial output, France looked like falling, naval conveys were under severe threat from U-boats, and Britain could only feed itself for a pathetic 120 days a year.

 

 

 

That still doesn't convince me that communism is a viable economic system. If it were, why would Britain lossen it's government control after the war?

 

Well, for one, Churchill was a Conservative. Why would he like communism? Then there was also war weariness. People didn't want to live like that any more.

 

 

 

Secondly, the Labour Party swept to power after the war and introduced the NHS. Rationing continued after the war. The railways were developed as they were nationalised. The 'Homes for Heroes' scheme was funded by the Government to improve the living conditions for people in the working classes.

 

 

 

Britain didn't embrace communism with open arms, but some traits of it certainly stayed after the war.

 

 

 

I think it would be worth clarifying at this point exactly what 'work' means. Each system has its economical advantages and disadvantages, there's no 'Model X is better than Model Y' answer here.

 

Utopianism has it's economic advantages: everyone's happy and countries see record growth. Except that's an economic advantage you see on paper rather than in the real world.

 

Referring to your own ideal as the only one that pertains to reality, whilst dismissing all else as "it doesn't work" strikes me as bad arguing etiquette.

[Rebdragon]

Gentlemen, I like to engage in intellegunt discussion because, honestly, I feel that when I need to make an argument and defend it I find myself learning quite a lot. That is not the case here.

 

 

 

This may be a worthy debate for some, and there very well may be someone who's willing to debate this, but, fair warning, I'm done. As arrogant as it may sound to you I find it both tiresome and uneducational to spend my time disproving a system and defending another when quite honestly reading up on any random piece of economic history would suffice as a post as good as any I would make. I'm not going to debate that creationism is stupid, and I'm not going to debate that communism doesn't work. Again, as arrogant as it sounds, it's a monumental waste of time- the very act of debating it gives it more credence than it deserves.

 

 

 

Well, there's yer goodbye letter. Have fun basking in the left.