Rage against the Machine - Communism Vs. Capitalism (again!)

[The diplomat]

I hope it is not too late for one more person to jump into the debate.

I think both capitalism and communism have been distorted by human nature. During the industrial revolution, greedy and ambitious people used the system to amass as much wealth as possible at the expense of the worker. Likewise, as we saw during in the Soviet Union, greedy, powerful and ambitious people used communism to concentrate all the power and wealth in their hands at the expense of the workers.

Human nature corrupts all things!

But from a purely theoretical level, I do believe that capitalism is unquestionably superior to communism. Each person is different. Each person has unique skills and abilities. Some people are more intelligent than other people. Some people are great athletes, some are terrible. Some are very skilled at manual labor, some are better at intellectual work. This uniqueness of each individual is an undeniable fact. Human beings are not equal. Now, we should be treated fairly and with dignity, but we are not all equal. Communism denies this by pretending that each person can be completely equal. Capitalism understands these inherent differences in every person. As a result, it is based on the moral foundation that each person should be able to do what they are best at, and reap the rewards of their work.

Capitalism is the free exercise of man's unique skills, and the free exchange of the fruit of each man's labor, for the benefit of each man according to the worth of his work.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Is there anything interesting and new in this thread, or is it the same stuff in the first two just going back and forth?

I'm too lazy to look.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Human beings are not equal. Now, we should be treated fairly and with dignity, but we are not all equal. Communism denies this by pretending that each person can be completely equal. Capitalism understands these inherent differences in every person. As a result, it is based on the moral foundation that each person should be able to do what they are best at, and reap the rewards of their work.

Capitalism is the free exercise of man's unique skills, and the free exchange of the fruit of each man's labor, for the benefit of each man according to the worth of his work.

There you go. You hit it on the head. Everyone's work isn't equally beneficial to society. In today's economy one scientist can do more to benefit society than 10 workers. Why, because if those 10 workers were to parish there are 10 others to take their place. But really there are only so many people who are even capable of doing scientific work.

People are equal regardless of the market value of their work. Do you dispute this? Do you say that you are only worth what your boss pays you? No, you have other qualities. You do things that benefit society that you don't even get paid for.

I'm not saying that people have equal capabilities in the market place. I'm saying that they should be treated equally regardless, but scientist and such should be compensated a little more just for the sake of incentives.

[alva]

Yep, I joined
-
Don't know really, didn't follow the fist one. It is a slightly different topic, well differents accents anyway

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Is there anything interesting and new in this thread, or is it the same stuff in the first two just going back and forth?

I'm too lazy to look.

Vel is still denying exploition with the same old 'opportunity in infinite' argument. I'm showing that that's not true.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I never saw that "opportunity is infinite" argument. Opportunity exists.

If I get your latest bit, if someone decides their lifestyle costs them $40,000 a year to support, and they want a job as a ditchdigger or stock clerk in a grocery store warehouse, they're being "exploited" if the job doesn't offer them that amount of money, regardless of the value of the services entailed by the job?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I never saw that "opportunity is infinite" argument. Opportunity exists.

If I get your latest bit, if someone decides their lifestyle costs them $40,000 a year to support, and they want a job as a ditchdigger or stock clerk in a grocery store warehouse, they're being "exploited" if the job doesn't offer them that amount of money, regardless of the value of the services entailed by the job?

I think that most people would be satisfied with around 30k. Anything less than that is pretty hard to live on. And no, the market value of their labor doesn't matter to me. A persons worth should not be established in this manner.

[Kidlicious]

MtG,

Maybe you can help Vel explain how choosing the best possible job for yourself is choosing not to be exploited, regardless of what the job pays.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
There you go. You hit it on the head. Everyone's work isn't equally beneficial to society. In today's economy one scientist can do more to benefit society than 10 workers. Why, because if those 10 workers were to parish there are 10 others to take their place. But really there are only so many people who are even capable of doing scientific work.

If the scientists' work is more valuable then why shouldn't they get paid more? Shouldn't people be rewarded proportionally to the value of their work?

People are equal regardless of the market value of their work. Do you dispute this?

No, I don't dispute this. But the market value is the only thing that really matters in our economy. I can shout to the world, "I have worth!" all I want, but the nasty little truth is that the world is not going to care much if I can't actually give them something they need.

Do you say that you are only worth what your boss pays you? No, you have other qualities. You do things that benefit society that you don't even get paid for.

But capitalism is the best way for someone to do something about it. If you are smart and have perseverance, you can turn those unused qualities into wealth.

You can't do that with communism, because it already predetermines what everybody's worth is.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do you say that you are only worth what your boss pays you? No, you have other qualities. You do things that benefit society that you don't even get paid for.

That's your main problem. You believe that your market value (ie, salary) is your worth as a PERSON! It isn't! It's your worth as a WORKER! A salary is your market value as an economic agent. The rest of your worth is for other things and structures to determine.

[Velociryx]

Vel is taking a break for busting his a$$ packing and back for more!

Alva: I quite agree that we certainly cannot say businesses are not greedy. Man is greedy, man made "business," and business inherits his traits. Being that it is run by man, yep....there's an inherent greed factor there. No argument from me on that one!

Is this something that can be controlled? Absolutely, and we see evidence of that here in America, as well as in all other highly advanced capitalist societies.

What Kid refuses to acknowledge is the fact...not the supposition, but the FACT that capitalism has been continually reinventing itself since day one. As far as I can see, communism has not (perhaps Che can chime in here and clarify if I am wrong), but Communism still chants the Marxist mantra like it was this morning's news, DESPITE the fact that Capitalism has moved on. In highly advanced capitalist societies, we have labor laws, minimum wage (the same concept as Kid's "guaranteed wage" but without the loss of personal freedom), and there's a strong move in most highly advanced capitalist nations for "Universal Healthcare" (IMO, the best example of this resides in Canada, but Europe has some highly attractive models too, and America is slowly shifting in that direction as well). Add in vacation pay, family leave, the undeniable power of labor unions in certain sectors of the economy, anti-trust laws, checks against the formation of monopolies, etc., and Marx would frankly not recognize what we call "Capitalism" today as being the same creature he wrote about. It's not. Capitalism is all about competition, and has been forced (continually forced) to adapt to an ever-changing environment. Marx would most likely applaud most, if not all of the changes to capitalism I mentioned above, because it goes a long ways toward levelling the playing field.

Is it perfect? Nope. There's still TONS of room for improvement, and that improvement continues on an almost constant basis.

What that suggests to me is that the current system, recognizing some of the core strengths of alternative systems, is going about adopting the best features, and ditching the rest (capitalism requires private ownership, so it has rejected the notion of the state controlling everything, however, as we have seen by the rise in terms like "Universal Healthcare" there is a strong trend to adopt socialist ways for certain aspects of human life.

That it is happening is absolutely undeniable (unless you want to pretend that the US, Canada, and Europe simply do not exist).

Are there sweatshops in SE Asia right now? Yes!

Is the answer to that to rip down capitalism? No.

The answer to that is to encourage those governments ruling over the people their to pass laws modelled after the laws in highly advanced capitalist nations to protect their people's best interests. Do that, and the sweatshops disappear, just as they have, by and large, disappeared from the highly developed capitalist nations.

It has been said before that capitalism requires a large poverty-class to function effectively.

IMO, that is incorrect. Capitalism, by its nature, leads to social stratification, yes. There will be rich and there will be poor, but there is NO reason....no reason whatsoever that the poorest of the poor must live lives that deny them the basics of human dignity. History will bear out that capitalism has been the most efficient engine history has ever seen in terms of improving the standard of living and quality of life for the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time.

I am well aware of its flaws and limitations, and equally well aware that there is wide lattitude for improvement of the current system. Again, that improvement is a continuous, ongoing process, in action every day and MANDATED, not by the state or any governing agency, but by the market itself.

The "Captains of Industry" know full well that their industry is consumer driven. If consumers aren't working, they aren't making money. If they aren't making money, they aren't SPENDING money and the whole thing grinds to a halt. For this reason alone (and there are plenty of other checks, both natural and officiated) the situation doomsayers like Kid rant about will never occur. These are smart guys. Smarter by far, than most of us here (myself included, most certainly!). Hasn't happened so far, doesn't look like it's going to happen in the immediate future, and if I'm wrong and it DOES happen, I'm quite sure that Kid will be first in line to tell me "I told you so" But I'd not hold my breath on it

Companies exist to compete. That's what they do. They will compete within whatever framework the law allows (some compete outside these bounds, and invariably, to a bad end....Enron, Standard Oil, MCI WorldComm, a whole host of others), but by and large, companies tend to play by the rules, especially if the rules are well-structured enough that not playing by the rules is prohibitively expensive.

The equalizing factor here (again, in most highly advanced capitalist societies) is the democracy that travels with them. One man, one vote. Companies can mistreat their workers...it's happened before, it's happening today, and when they do, the workers (who outnumber the bosses significantly) can elect governing officials to change or strengthen existing laws in their favor (happens all the time). There are entire law firms (not just one or two, but tons of them) who specialize in litigation against corporations. It's sexy and romantic on the TV news to run a story about a big company getting bit by the little guy.

What makes the whole system hum is the checks and balances built in (via law). If there's an imbalance, it doesn't mean the system is broken....the system is working exactly as designed, but what needs fixing are the laws that govern the rules of the game (which is why, going back to the earlier example of the sweatshops in SE Asia, the answer is in strengthening the laws in those countries, not tearing down the system).

-=Vel=-
(of course, Kid will still disagree... )

[Velociryx]

Here's what cracks me up!

From Kid:
I think that most people would be satisfied with around 30k.

2002 PPP Adjusted Avg. Annual Income in the US:
$34,280

But "the majority of Americans" are being exploited.



-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The diplomat
If the scientists' work is more valuable then why shouldn't they get paid more? Shouldn't people be rewarded proportionally to the value of their work?

What if only scientists' work had a market value? Whould you support a system that only allowed scientists a living? People should be allowed a comfortable living regardless of there ability to be compensated in a purely capitalistic system.

Originally posted by The diplomat
No, I don't dispute this. But the market value is the only thing that really matters in our economy. I can shout to the world, "I have worth!" all I want, but the nasty little truth is that the world is not going to care much if I can't actually give them something they need..

That's because of extremists who only believe in individualism. We need to get them out of power.

Originally posted by The diplomat
But capitalism is the best way for someone to do something about it. If you are smart and have perseverance, you can turn those unused qualities into wealth.

Not really. How do you make reporting a crime profitable? Or how do you make helping little old ladies across the street profitable? There are many things that people do that is no compensatable within the capitalist system.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Do you say that you are only worth what your boss pays you? No, you have other qualities. You do things that benefit society that you don't even get paid for.

That's your main problem. You believe that your market value (ie, salary) is your worth as a PERSON! It isn't! It's your worth as a WORKER! A salary is your market value as an economic agent. The rest of your worth is for other things and structures to determine.

So you tell me why people should not recieve an income for their worth to society.

[Velociryx]

So you tell me why people should not recieve an income for their worth to society.

"I'm cool." does not equal "Pay me what I think I deserve to be paid."

"I'm a human being." does not equal "Pay me what I think I deserve to be paid."

The capitalist system is driven by work and initiative. Those that work...those that have initiative, WILL get more than those who don't.

We DO have a welfare system in this country that pays people who cannot work. Now, you may argue that what they get paid is insufficient, and that's a valid argument. But the system is working now as you describe. What it does NOT do is pay people what they "say" they're worth, or what they want to be paid.

-=Vel=-